To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
@GrahamC said:
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
As long as a replacement call
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
)
I find the application of law 23 to insufficient bids quite interesting.
With an insufficient bid, no systemic meaning is available, as it cannot exist within the system. So we have to look at what it might have meant - not just what the caller intended but all such possibilities under their system.
Such cases are almost always dealt with under Law 23A2: A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it ... defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, and the offender in reality can have quite a large choice of comparable bids.
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
)
I find the application of law 23 to insufficient bids quite interesting.
With an insufficient bid, no systemic meaning is available, as it cannot exist within the system. So we have to look at what it might have meant - not just what the caller intended but all such possibilities under their system.
Such cases are almost always dealt with under Law 23A2: A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it ... defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, and the offender in reality can have quite a large choice of comparable bids.
Certainly - however I don't often meet insufficient calls out of turn. All three options go to show the change in durection of the WBF to ensure that the results of more hands are determined at the bridge table rather than solely out of the lawbook.
In some cases, a partnership is clear on what an insufficient bid is likely to have meant. In fact, I've encountered a situation where an insufficient bid was alerted! (IIRC, the bidding went 2!d, Pass, Pass, 2!d, with the second 2!d being alerted as reverse Benji, thus semi-preemptive with a hand that's offensively strong but might not be defensively strong. There was some debate about whether the replacement 4!h was a comparable call, but the insufficient bidder's partner wanted to pass anyway so it ended up not mattering.)
The most common meaning for an insufficient bid seems to be that it means the same thing as if the bid that it fails to supersede had instead been a pass (as insufficient bids are normally a case of missing that the opponents have bid). Next most common is failing to calculate the minimum level for a natural bid (but that more commonly results in players bidding a non-jump bid under the incorrect assumption that they jumped, thus causes UI from the use of a Stop card rather than an insufficient bid).
@GrahamC said:
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
As long as a replacement call
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
@GrahamC said:
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
As long as a replacement call
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
@GrahamC said:
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
As long as a replacement call
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
@GrahamC said:
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
As long as a replacement call
has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or . . .
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn
call.
)
@GrahamC said:
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
In my opinion S cannot move straight to a comparable call.
If W does not accept the insufficient bid OOT and it is cancelled, and if E then passes, S should have to repeat his (IB) call under law 31 A 1.
W then has the option of accepting the IB under law 27 A 1. ( Why did he not accept it immediately? Because he wanted to see what his partner would call)
Only if W does not accept the IB will the question of comparable call arise.
Interesting that the laws would allow (indeed force) an illegal bid to be repeated - this seems contrary to the way they usually operate, although seems to be intentional (when that call is legal there is no rectification).
I guess it reduces the potential for UI, but still seems... wrong somehow.
@JeremyChild said:
Interesting that the laws would allow (indeed force) an illegal bid to be repeated - this seems contrary to the way they usually operate, although seems to be intentional (when that call is legal there is no rectification).
I guess it reduces the potential for UI, but still seems... wrong somehow.
Not really unfair, if you think about it. If E passes, indicating no natural or conventional defensive call to make, forcing S to repeat his call gives W the opportunity to accept the IB and show a suit, if he has one, at the 1 level. Otherwise S will in all probability bid 3NT and E will have no guidance for an opening lead.
@Vlad said:
Not really unfair, if you think about it. If E passes, indicating no natural or conventional defensive call to make, forcing S to repeat his call gives W the opportunity to accept the IB and show a suit, if he has one, at the 1 level. Otherwise S will in all probability bid 3NT and E will have no guidance for an opening lead.
You're assuming that W gets two bites at the cherry and has a "right" to accept the IB a second time. Whilst this is clearly what the law says, it's inconsistent with how they operate elsewhere. Once the IB is withdrawn I don't see why it should be repeated.
And why would S bid 3NT when he can make his intended bid anyway?
Basically, West can deal with both the IB and the COOT by simply accepting. If he declines to accept, we first deal with the COOT, which brings East back into the picture. When East passes, we restore the IB, since West now has the extra information that partner passed and can decide again under the new information. If he again declines then we deal with the consequences of the IB.
I think it was simply a matter of having to have an order in which to deal with these two infractions, and having clarified that (which logically had to be that way around), all else follows.
I did have to rule on a similar situation at an EBU event but under the 2007 Laws in which the order of dealing with the infractions was the same but the rectifications were different. I think it is important to explain to the non-offending side that they may get these two chances to accept the offending call before they make the decision at the first opportunity as it will very often be to their advantage to refuse acceptance the first time (and obtain information from partner's call) even if subsequently he/she accepts the insufficient bid if partner passes.
Following this sequence from the Laws seemed to work well and seemed to be understood by the players. Although they were sufficiently nonplussed that when the offending side became defenders they failed to allow the declarer to exercise the then existing lead restrictions creating a major penalty card. All-in-all an interesting hand as director.
It can also become a little more complicated if South claims a mechanical error by stating that his intention was to bid 2C, Stayman. West then has no option to accept 1C, since it was never an intended bid, but he can still reject 2C and then East has a chance to call. The 2C remains AI to EW but is UI to NS, unless East passes, whereupon South must repeat the 2C bid.
@JeremyChild said:
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
@JeremyChild said:
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
The difference between here and the situation you describe is that in yours S commits ("chooses to commit") a second infraction. In the situation described originally, S has no choice - the repeat infraction is forced upon him.
I'm not saying the law is wrong or inconsistent, just that not forcing a player to repeat an illegal call would, to my mind, be interfering less.
@JeremyChild said:
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
The difference between here and the situation you describe is that in yours S commits ("chooses to commit") a second infraction. In the situation described originally, S has no choice - the repeat infraction is forced upon him.
I'm not saying the law is wrong or inconsistent, just that not forcing a player to repeat an illegal call would, to my mind, be interfering less.
In the original situation S does have a choice-he does not HAVE TO repeat the infraction, he can make any other call and face the consequences if it is not a comparable call.
@JeremyChild said:
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
The difference between here and the situation you describe is that in yours S commits ("chooses to commit") a second infraction. In the situation described originally, S has no choice - the repeat infraction is forced upon him.
I'm not saying the law is wrong or inconsistent, just that not forcing a player to repeat an illegal call would, to my mind, be interfering less.
In the original situation S does have a choice-he does not HAVE TO repeat the infraction, he can make any other call and face the consequences if it is not a comparable call.
No he doesn't - that's the whole point. Law 31A1: When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification.
@JeremyChild said:
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
The difference between here and the situation you describe is that in yours S commits ("chooses to commit") a second infraction. In the situation described originally, S has no choice - the repeat infraction is forced upon him.
I'm not saying the law is wrong or inconsistent, just that not forcing a player to repeat an illegal call would, to my mind, be interfering less.
In the original situation S does have a choice-he does not HAVE TO repeat the infraction, he can make any other call and face the consequences if it is not a comparable call.
No he doesn't - that's the whole point. Law 31A1: When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification.
So clearly the laws imply that rectification must be made if the call made is not legal.
@JeremyChild said:
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
The difference between here and the situation you describe is that in yours S commits ("chooses to commit") a second infraction. In the situation described originally, S has no choice - the repeat infraction is forced upon him.
I'm not saying the law is wrong or inconsistent, just that not forcing a player to repeat an illegal call would, to my mind, be interfering less.
In the original situation S does have a choice-he does not HAVE TO repeat the infraction, he can make any other call and face the consequences if it is not a comparable call.
No he doesn't - that's the whole point. Law 31A1: When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification.
Sorry, my mistake, the option for S to make a comparable call only exists if E bids.
You are right, S is forced to commit the second infraction if E passes.
However, I was arguing from another standpoint. What I understand you to be saying is that it is wrong or unfair for the law to force S to repeat his illegal call, the IB, if E passes. If we carry this argument further, if S was allowed to bid something else because his BOOT was an IB, would it not deprive W of the opportunity to accept the IB after he has heard his partner pass?
You are right, S is forced to commit the second infraction if E passes.
However, I was arguing from another standpoint. What I understand you to be saying is that it is wrong or unfair for the law to force S to repeat his illegal call, the IB, if E passes. If we carry this argument further, if S was allowed to bid something else because his BOOT was an IB, would it not deprive W of the opportunity to accept the IB after he has heard his partner pass?
Why should W have a second opportunity (other than because the law says so)?
My understanding is that a number of laws exist because what often happens in practise at the table makes it too late to go back. The ability to accept either a call or play out of turn is one of these. A number of times the next player will call / play before it is realised what has happened. Rather than force the director to unpick this with all its UI and AI implications, the laws allow this to happen without any rectification.
From this is it a logical step to allow the next player to accept the call / play anyway.
I get both of these - they are both fair and pragmatic.
But in this case it is already known that the bid to be made is going to be illegal, so the original rationale does not apply. If you don't allow the next player to accept it the second time, then the bid must be withdrawn per Law27B and the comparable call rules come into play, exactly the same as under Law31A had the offender not been forced to repeat the illegal bid.
I appreciate this is all academic, as that is NOT what the laws say, but I find it interesting enough to be worthy of at least some discussion.
For West there is a big difference to hearing partner overcall or pass, or not have a chance to bid at all.
Put it this way, N opens and E Passes - South bids 1C and now West knows whether to accept the insufficient bid (so that they can overcall 1S or maybe even Stop 2S! But West is making this decision knowing that their partner does not have a hand suitable for an overcall (whatever their systems are).
However, when it goes N - 1NT, BOOT S 1C, west does not know if their partner has an overcall or not, so is now not in as good of a position to make a decision, so refuses to accept the BOOT. Should their partner now pass, we are back to the position above and why should west not now have the opportunity to bid 1S or whatever?
I think that part of the problem is the use of language, such as 'illeagal', 'you cant make that bid', 'that bid is against the laws' or is an 'unlawful bid'. The only bids that really fit this language (that I can think of just now) would be doubling your partners bid (or redoubling their double), bids lower than 1C or higher than 7NT or bids made whilst barred from bidding.
These bids are not allowed and cannot be accepted and as such need to be removed.
The other bids - insufficient, out of turn etc, may be accepted and if a bid is possible, it is not illegal by definition (as these are specifically allowed for in the laws, albeit with potential consequences).
I tend to take the view that such situations should be resolved in a manner which cannot give an advantage to the offending side which the non-offending side could have avoided. As such, giving West two bites of the cherry makes perfect sense to me.
@Martin said:
For West there is a big difference to hearing partner overcall or pass, or not have a chance to bid at all.
Put it this way, N opens and E Passes - South bids 1C and now West knows whether to accept the insufficient bid (so that they can overcall 1S or maybe even Stop 2S! But West is making this decision knowing that their partner does not have a hand suitable for an overcall (whatever their systems are).
However, when it goes N - 1NT, BOOT S 1C, west does not know if their partner has an overcall or not, so is now not in as good of a position to make a decision, so refuses to accept the BOOT. Should their partner now pass, we are back to the position above and why should west not now have the opportunity to bid 1S or whatever?
I think this explanation of the rationale is absolutely spot on.
@Martin said:
I think that part of the problem is the use of language, such as 'illeagal', 'you cant make that bid', 'that bid is against the laws' or is an 'unlawful bid'. The only bids that really fit this language (that I can think of just now) would be doubling your partners bid (or redoubling their double), bids lower than 1C or higher than 7NT or bids made whilst barred from bidding.
These bids are not allowed and cannot be accepted and as such need to be removed.
The other bids - insufficient, out of turn etc, may be accepted and if a bid is possible, it is not illegal by definition (as these are specifically allowed for in the laws, albeit with potential consequences).
The mechanics of the game can cope with insufficient bids, bids out of turn etc., by protecting the rights of the non-offending side and permitting the hand to be played out subject to whatever rectification is prescribed. There is no reason, therefore, why there should not be an option to accept such things.
The mechanics of the game cannot cope with inadmissible doubles and redoubles, and bids of more than 7 (how would you score the board in either case if the call could stand and everybody passed?). That is a very good reason why there is no option to accept such calls.
Hi, I’ve been following this thread as an observer, and the interesting thing is repeating the insufficient bid after it has been not accepted by West and then back to East who passes again, allowing the Insufficient bid to be re-made. (A Legal option it would appear). However, if East does not pass and bids (say) 1D. At this point would South still be able to repeat the insufficient call of 1C, being legal and comparable. ? If so, would West then be allowed Not to accept this insufficient bid Or required to accept it ?
Comments
Law 27A2: If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation Law 31 applies.
Although it doesn't strictly say this, what it means is that an insufficient bid out of rotation is treated as a call out of rotation first.
Thus Law 29A applies: Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.
There is no rectification (so no restriction on N), and so (as Gordon says) N can make any legal call.
To me the interesting, not entirely academic, question is what would have happened had W not accepted the 1s bid? It gets cancelled and suppose East passes. Now what?
What would be a comparable call to the insufficient 1c bid. Was it intended as Stayman or natural? Indeed, is that the correct question to ask?
As long as a replacement call
Then it is OK - So if the replacement call showed clubs AND an opening hand then that would be fine if the original could have shown clubs, if the replacement call asked for a major then that, too would be fine (although in that case the call would also qualify under
call.
)
I find the application of law 23 to insufficient bids quite interesting.
With an insufficient bid, no systemic meaning is available, as it cannot exist within the system. So we have to look at what it might have meant - not just what the caller intended but all such possibilities under their system.
Such cases are almost always dealt with under Law 23A2: A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it ... defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, and the offender in reality can have quite a large choice of comparable bids.
Certainly - however I don't often meet insufficient calls out of turn. All three options go to show the change in durection of the WBF to ensure that the results of more hands are determined at the bridge table rather than solely out of the lawbook.
In some cases, a partnership is clear on what an insufficient bid is likely to have meant. In fact, I've encountered a situation where an insufficient bid was alerted! (IIRC, the bidding went 2!d, Pass, Pass, 2!d, with the second 2!d being alerted as reverse Benji, thus semi-preemptive with a hand that's offensively strong but might not be defensively strong. There was some debate about whether the replacement 4!h was a comparable call, but the insufficient bidder's partner wanted to pass anyway so it ended up not mattering.)
The most common meaning for an insufficient bid seems to be that it means the same thing as if the bid that it fails to supersede had instead been a pass (as insufficient bids are normally a case of missing that the opponents have bid). Next most common is failing to calculate the minimum level for a natural bid (but that more commonly results in players bidding a non-jump bid under the incorrect assumption that they jumped, thus causes UI from the use of a Stop card rather than an insufficient bid).
In my opinion S cannot move straight to a comparable call.
If W does not accept the insufficient bid OOT and it is cancelled, and if E then passes, S should have to repeat his (IB) call under law 31 A 1.
W then has the option of accepting the IB under law 27 A 1. ( Why did he not accept it immediately? Because he wanted to see what his partner would call)
Only if W does not accept the IB will the question of comparable call arise.
Interesting that the laws would allow (indeed force) an illegal bid to be repeated - this seems contrary to the way they usually operate, although seems to be intentional (when that call is legal there is no rectification).
I guess it reduces the potential for UI, but still seems... wrong somehow.
Not really unfair, if you think about it. If E passes, indicating no natural or conventional defensive call to make, forcing S to repeat his call gives W the opportunity to accept the IB and show a suit, if he has one, at the 1 level. Otherwise S will in all probability bid 3NT and E will have no guidance for an opening lead.
You're assuming that W gets two bites at the cherry and has a "right" to accept the IB a second time. Whilst this is clearly what the law says, it's inconsistent with how they operate elsewhere. Once the IB is withdrawn I don't see why it should be repeated.
And why would S bid 3NT when he can make his intended bid anyway?
Basically, West can deal with both the IB and the COOT by simply accepting. If he declines to accept, we first deal with the COOT, which brings East back into the picture. When East passes, we restore the IB, since West now has the extra information that partner passed and can decide again under the new information. If he again declines then we deal with the consequences of the IB.
I understand how it works, but not why. I guess that's the important bit though!
I did have to rule on a similar situation at an EBU event but under the 2007 Laws in which the order of dealing with the infractions was the same but the rectifications were different. I think it is important to explain to the non-offending side that they may get these two chances to accept the offending call before they make the decision at the first opportunity as it will very often be to their advantage to refuse acceptance the first time (and obtain information from partner's call) even if subsequently he/she accepts the insufficient bid if partner passes.
Following this sequence from the Laws seemed to work well and seemed to be understood by the players. Although they were sufficiently nonplussed that when the offending side became defenders they failed to allow the declarer to exercise the then existing lead restrictions creating a major penalty card. All-in-all an interesting hand as director.
I have given up trying to understand why with all the rules. ;)
Alan
It can also become a little more complicated if South claims a mechanical error by stating that his intention was to bid 2C, Stayman. West then has no option to accept 1C, since it was never an intended bid, but he can still reject 2C and then East has a chance to call. The 2C remains AI to EW but is UI to NS, unless East passes, whereupon South must repeat the 2C bid.
Intriguing notion. 31A does specifically include "when that bid is legal there is no rectification" so the intent seems clear enough.
To understand ‘why’, imagine S making a BOOT which is legal, not accepted by W. The auction reverts to E, who passes. S then makes an IB! Wouldn’t W now have the option once more to accept it or not? OK, it is unlikely to happen this way in practice, but this should explain the logic behind W getting two bites at the cherry. In fact, it is not a case of two bites at the same cherry, it is a case of one bite each at two different cherries!
The difference between here and the situation you describe is that in yours S commits ("chooses to commit") a second infraction. In the situation described originally, S has no choice - the repeat infraction is forced upon him.
I'm not saying the law is wrong or inconsistent, just that not forcing a player to repeat an illegal call would, to my mind, be interfering less.
In the original situation S does have a choice-he does not HAVE TO repeat the infraction, he can make any other call and face the consequences if it is not a comparable call.
No he doesn't - that's the whole point. Law 31A1: When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification.
So clearly the laws imply that rectification must be made if the call made is not legal.
Sorry, my mistake, the option for S to make a comparable call only exists if E bids.
You are right, S is forced to commit the second infraction if E passes.
However, I was arguing from another standpoint. What I understand you to be saying is that it is wrong or unfair for the law to force S to repeat his illegal call, the IB, if E passes. If we carry this argument further, if S was allowed to bid something else because his BOOT was an IB, would it not deprive W of the opportunity to accept the IB after he has heard his partner pass?
Why should W have a second opportunity (other than because the law says so)?
My understanding is that a number of laws exist because what often happens in practise at the table makes it too late to go back. The ability to accept either a call or play out of turn is one of these. A number of times the next player will call / play before it is realised what has happened. Rather than force the director to unpick this with all its UI and AI implications, the laws allow this to happen without any rectification.
From this is it a logical step to allow the next player to accept the call / play anyway.
I get both of these - they are both fair and pragmatic.
But in this case it is already known that the bid to be made is going to be illegal, so the original rationale does not apply. If you don't allow the next player to accept it the second time, then the bid must be withdrawn per Law27B and the comparable call rules come into play, exactly the same as under Law31A had the offender not been forced to repeat the illegal bid.
I appreciate this is all academic, as that is NOT what the laws say, but I find it interesting enough to be worthy of at least some discussion.
For West there is a big difference to hearing partner overcall or pass, or not have a chance to bid at all.
Put it this way, N opens and E Passes - South bids 1C and now West knows whether to accept the insufficient bid (so that they can overcall 1S or maybe even Stop 2S! But West is making this decision knowing that their partner does not have a hand suitable for an overcall (whatever their systems are).
However, when it goes N - 1NT, BOOT S 1C, west does not know if their partner has an overcall or not, so is now not in as good of a position to make a decision, so refuses to accept the BOOT. Should their partner now pass, we are back to the position above and why should west not now have the opportunity to bid 1S or whatever?
I think that part of the problem is the use of language, such as 'illeagal', 'you cant make that bid', 'that bid is against the laws' or is an 'unlawful bid'. The only bids that really fit this language (that I can think of just now) would be doubling your partners bid (or redoubling their double), bids lower than 1C or higher than 7NT or bids made whilst barred from bidding.
These bids are not allowed and cannot be accepted and as such need to be removed.
The other bids - insufficient, out of turn etc, may be accepted and if a bid is possible, it is not illegal by definition (as these are specifically allowed for in the laws, albeit with potential consequences).
I tend to take the view that such situations should be resolved in a manner which cannot give an advantage to the offending side which the non-offending side could have avoided. As such, giving West two bites of the cherry makes perfect sense to me.
I think this explanation of the rationale is absolutely spot on.
The mechanics of the game can cope with insufficient bids, bids out of turn etc., by protecting the rights of the non-offending side and permitting the hand to be played out subject to whatever rectification is prescribed. There is no reason, therefore, why there should not be an option to accept such things.
The mechanics of the game cannot cope with inadmissible doubles and redoubles, and bids of more than 7 (how would you score the board in either case if the call could stand and everybody passed?). That is a very good reason why there is no option to accept such calls.
(Bids of more than 7 were permitted in some circumstances until, I believe, 1948. The late Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer was alleged to have taken advantage of the precise wording of the pre-1948 Laws - see 5th January post by Brian Platnick at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/sir-peter-swinnerton-dyer-1927-2018-2-le7wkwnige/).
And yes, the consistency of terminology used in the Laws is capable of improvement.
However, if East does not pass and bids (say) 1D. At this point would South still be able to repeat the insufficient call of 1C, being legal and comparable. ? If so, would West then be allowed Not to accept this insufficient bid Or required to accept it ?