[VixTD]

I was called to a table yesterday where the auction had started:

1♥ - 2NT(A) - 1♠

The dealer said "that's not sufficient" and his partner said "sorry" and replaced it with 2♠.

"That's not sufficient either" said dealer, and she finally managed to make a legal call: 3♠.

I knew there was a law about replacing an insufficient bid with another insufficient bid, and I found law 27B4:

Quote

[27B4] if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A1 allows.

"As in 3" is referring to:

Quote

[27B3] except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and see Law 72C.

"Except as provided in B1(b)" refers to this:

Quote

[27B1(b)] except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following.

And "except as in (a)" refers to:

Quote

[27B1(a)]if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.

The bid was not (initially) replaced by the lowest legal bid specifying the same denomination, so 27B1(a) doesn't apply. What about 27B1(b)? Was 2♠ a comparable call? There's nothing in law 23 to say that a comparable call has to be sufficient, although I imagine that was the intention of the lawmakers. I suspect I was supposed to ask offender's LHO whether they want to accept 1♠ (explaining the consequences if they don't), then whether they want to accept 2♠ (ditto consequences), then finally, if neither call is accepted, rule that 3♠ stands as the call at that turn and silence offender's partner for the rest of the auction, as if it had been replaced by an illegal double or redouble.

Is that how you read the law?

(If it makes any difference, I did check that a cue-bid would not be the lowest legal call in the same denomination.)

[weejonnie]

My brain hurts!

Could we argue that as 2♠ is a comparable call, there is no rectification for the original IB (27B1b), but the new IB is subject to law 27 starting from scratch - in which case 27B1a is then operative - so that partner isn't silenced?

Compare and contrast with, say 1♥ - 2NT(a) - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠, where a non-comparable replacement call is initially made.

[blackshoe]

The first thing I would do is explain to the table that when attention is called to an irregularity, the next action by anyone at the table should be to call the director. Also, once that is done, no one shall take further action until the director explains all matters in regard to rectification.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-25, 19:04, said:

The first thing I would do is explain to the table that when attention is called to an irregularity, the next action by anyone at the table should be to call the director. Also, once that is done, no one shall take further action until the director explains all matters in regard to rectification.

Quite so. But the LHO should get the opportunity to accept the first IB, which he might do since he can show his best minor at a low level. If he doesn’t, I would consider 3♠ to be comparable. If necessary, apply Law 27D.

[VixTD]

sanst, on 2019-March-26, 04:08, said:

Quite so. But the LHO should get the opportunity to accept the first IB, which he might do since he can show his best minor at a low level. If he doesn’t, I would consider 3♠ to be comparable. If necessary, apply Law 27D.

That's essentially what I did, but I'm still not sure if "rules as in 3" means that I'm supposed to silence offender's partner, even though an immediate substitution to 3♠ (not via 2♠) would not have silenced him.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2019-March-26, 05:16, said:

That's essentially what I did, but I'm still not sure if "rules as in 3" means that I'm supposed to silence offender's partner, even though an immediate substitution to 3♠ (not via 2♠) would not have silenced him.

Yes, I think it does mean that offender's partner is silenced.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2019-March-25, 12:32, said:

There's nothing in law 23 to say that a comparable call has to be sufficient, although I imagine that was the intention of the lawmakers. I suspect I was supposed to ask offender's LHO whether they want to accept 1♠ (explaining the consequences if they don't), then whether they want to accept 2♠ (ditto consequences), then finally, if neither call is accepted, rule that 3♠ stands as the call at that turn and silence offender's partner for the rest of the auction, as if it had been replaced by an illegal double or redouble.

Is that how you read the law?

Yes, that's how I read it.

Although nothing specifically says that a comparable call has to be sufficient, it does by definition have to replace a withdrawn call. So any insufficient that has not been accepted cannot be a comparable call.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2019-March-25, 12:32, said:

The bid was not (initially) replaced by the lowest legal bid specifying the same denomination, so 27B1(a) doesn't apply.

27B1(a) does not include the word "initially". In this example, 1♠ was (eventually) replaced by 3♠, so I think there is no rectification. And the general liberal approach to people being careless suggests that this is the case.