Home EBU TDs

End of auction

According to Law 22, the auction ends when 'one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid'.
So the player who made the last bid becomes the declarer after the other three have passed. The last bidder. the presumed declarer, does not actually 'pass' at the end. Or is he supposed to?

But according to Law 17D3, 'when a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if one of those three passes was out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call'.
After the last bid three passes with one being out of rotation, depriving a player of his right to call, can only happen if the last bidder, the presumed declarer, also passes. So say North has bid, South passes out of rotation before East can call and West also passes. Would a pass by North be a valid call? If not, how do we get three passes with one being out of rotation? And if it is valid, then should it mean that for the auction to end there have to be FOUR passes after the last bid!

This is not a hypothetical question, I faced a situation at a high level tournament over the weekend, the solution for which requires an answer to the above question.

Comments

  • Yes, an auction can require four passes to finish. Consider a pass-out board.

    However, we can also have the case where North deals and opens, South passes out of turn, which West accepts and then passes and North also passes. Nominally, the auction would be over at this point but East has missed out on any opportunity to call and his pass, should he choose to do so, will then end the auction.

    We could also have, say, 1C by North, pass from East, 2C by South, pass out of turn by North, pass by East and also by South. West has had no opportunity to respond to 2C, or even to call at all, and he has a right to make a call. Note that in this case the person who made the last bid, South, will not be declarer after West's pass.

  • Well it seems to me that is the point: when someone has not had a chance to call, the last person to bid cannot end the auction by passing. So the law tells us to cancel the pass out of turn and any subsequent passes, so that the player who was deprived of a call gets that opportunity to call now.

  • I don't like to think of it as cancelling the three passes, since then West's pass would allow North another bite of the cherry to make a bid, rather than his previous pass. I would simply insist that West's pass, being a fourth consecutive pass, ends the auction. If West makes a bid then the auction continues with North to call.

  • @Tag said:
    Yes, an auction can require four passes to finish. Consider a pass-out board.

    However, we can also have the case where North deals and opens, South passes out of turn, which West accepts and then passes and North also passes. Nominally, the auction would be over at this point but East has missed out on any opportunity to call and his pass, should he choose to do so, will then end the auction.

    We could also have, say, 1C by North, pass from East, 2C by South, pass out of turn by North, pass by East and also by South. West has had no opportunity to respond to 2C, or even to call at all, and he has a right to make a call. Note that in this case the person who made the last bid, South, will not be declarer after West's pass.

    An auction will obviously require four passes to finish when no player has bid, but here no player is passing over his own opening bid with no intervening bid. That is not the point of my question, it is the example given by you in the second para, North deals and opens, South passes out of turn and West passes. You say North also passes. North has already bid and nobody has called over his bid. Maybe I am being pedantic, but is a pass by North in this situation a legal call?

    This, incidentally, is what happened at the game, with the added complication that North's bid and South's pass were simultaneous, which became the first bone of contention because the opponent claimed that South passed 'two seconds' before North's bid and South maintained it was less than two seconds! And then West passed before realising that South had passed out of turn and called the director AFTER he himself had passed and seen North's bid!

  • @Tag said:
    I don't like to think of it as cancelling the three passes,

    And yet the law says: "When this occurs the auction reverts to the player
    who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are
    cancelled and the auction proceeds normally."

  • @Vlad said:
    An auction will obviously require four passes to finish when no player has bid, but here no player is passing over his own opening bid with no intervening bid. That is not the point of my question, it is the example given by you in the second para, North deals and opens, South passes out of turn and West passes. You say North also passes. North has already bid and nobody has called over his bid. Maybe I am being pedantic, but is a pass by North in this situation a legal call?

    Yes, because the Law initially provides that W's pass accepts S's. So, after W's pass it is N's turn to call, and he may make any legal call including Pass. Then Law 17D3 kicks in to give E another go.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @Tag said:
    I don't like to think of it as cancelling the three passes,

    And yet the law says: "When this occurs the auction reverts to the player
    who missed his turn, all subsequent passes are
    cancelled and the auction proceeds normally."

    Fair cop, Gordon. Thank you.

  • @Abbeybear said:

    @Vlad said:
    An auction will obviously require four passes to finish when no player has bid, but here no player is passing over his own opening bid with no intervening bid. That is not the point of my question, it is the example given by you in the second para, North deals and opens, South passes out of turn and West passes. You say North also passes. North has already bid and nobody has called over his bid. Maybe I am being pedantic, but is a pass by North in this situation a legal call?

    Yes, because the Law initially provides that W's pass accepts S's. So, after W's pass it is N's turn to call, and he may make any legal call including Pass. Then Law 17D3 kicks in to give E another go.

    Since North can make any legal call at his second turn, imagine North having opened a Precision strong club or a strong 2C in another system, with a self-sufficient suit and game in hand values. He wasn't expecting to be passed out in a normal auction. Now that he has, he still gets a chance to bid game in his suit. That doesn't sound right, does it?

  • Hi, Vlad! :) It seems that what happened at your table was that you started by ruling under Law 33 that the Game force opener by North and the Pass by South were simultaneous so North was considered to have opened followed by South's pass out of turn, which was followed by West's pass. If North then passed, Law 34 refers us to Law 17D3 as quoted already. The three passes are all cancelled and the auction reverts to East. But if your North instead then bid something, game or otherwise, then he can do this and Law 17D3 doesn't apply and nothing gets cancelled and it's now East's turn next to call in the normal way.

    North might decide to pass even though he has a game-force hand because with the auction reverting to East with the three passes cancelled, he will get a normal response from partner opposite his opening. Of course, he probably won't know all this without advice from the TD before he passes! (Although Law 16C applies, I don't think it relevant in this instance.)

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • @Vlad said:
    Since North can make any legal call at his second turn, imagine North having opened a Precision strong club or a strong 2C in another system, with a self-sufficient suit and game in hand values. He wasn't expecting to be passed out in a normal auction. Now that he has, he still gets a chance to bid game in his suit. That doesn't sound right, does it?

    Well, if it wasn't for the simultaneous calls aspect which Barrie has dealt with, it is a consequence of W having accepted S's POOT by passing. Perhaps W, in ignorance of the Law, thought it was quite clever to pass N/S out in what he knew was a strong artificial 1 !c opening. He would have been better advised to call the TD, and if he had done so he would still have had the option to pass if he wished, but with knowledge of the legal consequences. (If he wants N/S to play in 1 !c on a non-existent fit, all he has to do is to decline to accept S's POOT. The bidding reverts to E: S must repeat his pass whatever E does, so if E passes W now has the opportunity to pass the hand out in 1 !c ).

  • I know that a BOOT needs to be repeated after the pass, but does a POOT? is that the same law? I thought that a withdrawn pass could then be replaced with aother bid that may be comparable.
  • Just had a look and I that that law 30 B applies, so they do not have to pass. If it were RHO' turn to bid then they would, but this was their partners turn and they bid simultaneously ...
  • Unfortunately, once we have decided that the calls are simultaneous, we have deemed that South's pass was subsequent to North's opening and that South has therefore passed at his RHO's turn to call, so Law 30A applies and not 30B, so Abbeybear is correct.

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • @Abbeybear said:

    @Vlad said:
    Since North can make any legal call at his second turn, imagine North having opened a Precision strong club or a strong 2C in another system, with a self-sufficient suit and game in hand values. He wasn't expecting to be passed out in a normal auction. Now that he has, he still gets a chance to bid game in his suit. That doesn't sound right, does it?

    Well, if it wasn't for the simultaneous calls aspect which Barrie has dealt with, it is a consequence of W having accepted S's POOT by passing. Perhaps W, in ignorance of the Law, thought it was quite clever to pass N/S out in what he knew was a strong artificial 1 !c opening. He would have been better advised to call the TD, and if he had done so he would still have had the option to pass if he wished, but with knowledge of the legal consequences. (If he wants N/S to play in 1 !c on a non-existent fit, all he has to do is to decline to accept S's POOT. The bidding reverts to E: S must repeat his pass whatever E does, so if E passes W now has the opportunity to pass the hand out in 1 !c ).

  • Thinking further about situations similar to this:

    Imagine that South calls OOT when his partner is the dealer, but he does not pass, he makes a bid, say 1H.
    North does not notice that his partner has bid and makes his 'proper' bid, say 1C or 1D. (Insufficient)
    It is agreed that South's bid was not simultaneous with North's, it was made distinctly earlier in time.

    Do we give West the option to accept South's BOOT?
    If so, then if West does not accept, the BOOT is withdrawn and North's bid stands.
    But what if West accepts the BOOT and either passes or bids over it, what happens to North's bid? Does it get treated as an IB?

  • edited February 2019

    IMHO

    West accepts the 1st COOT by electing to call. (29A). This makes it his turn to call and North's call is now out of rotation and an IB - which means that law 31 applies (see law 27).

    So East may exercise the option of 29A and accept the call (even though it is an IB) - there is no penalty now for the IB (and West has lost his turn to call). If not then the call is cancelled under 29B and Law 31A applies

    A. RHO’s Turn to Call
    When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then:
    1. If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is
    legal there is no rectification.
    2. If that opponent makes a legal8 bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call:
    (a) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law
    26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.
    (b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when
    next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

    So West calls: If he passes then North must repeat the IB and East now has the rights(again) under law 27. (The major changes are that North can now make a call showing the same denominations at the lowest level if the IB isn't accepted, but if he does't and can't make a comparablecall then his partner must pass for the REST of the auction rather than one round)

    (And you expect a TD to work all this out in a few minutes!)

  • Isn't this just bread and butter ruling for an exasperated director? :anguished:

  • @Tag said:
    Isn't this just bread and butter ruling for an exasperated director? :anguished:

    More like a 5-course banquet. It is defintely one where I would like to see the menu before sitting down to eat.

  • The question that I cannot get out of my mind is:

    Law 28 says that a call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent.

    Why not if the call out of rotation is by partner? What would be the reason for this difference in treatment?

    In the above example, if it had been East or West who called out of turn and North called before rectification had been assessed, under law 28 North's call would stand and the auction would proceed as though East/West had not called. (Law 16C2 applies). But if South is the offender the law does not give North this right. Yes, North has UI from South's call, but he would have the same UI if South had called at East's turn to call and South's call was not accepted and therefore withdrawn.

  • Yes - i had to read that law carefully. I suspect it has to do with the probability that the person in rotation may make an 'insufficient' bid over RHO's BOOT, the COOT not being seen; however we can't deny LHO the right to accept the COOT just because the player's partner responds.

  • edited February 2019

    @Vlad said:
    Why not if the call out of rotation is by partner? What would be the reason for this difference in treatment?

    The laws don't want to allow Norths action to cancel South's infraction.

Sign In or Register to comment.