On Rule 28A
Law 28A states:
A call is in considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at RHO's turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass.
This is most likely to occur when a player is required to pass for the current round or for the rest of the auction following an earlier infraction such as an insufficient bid or a bid out of turn by partner.
Presumably it can also occur in in the following scenario; a player passes when it is RHO's turn to call. The director is called and the call out of turn is not accepted and so cancelled. RHO passes and so the offender is obliged to pass (rule 30A). However, for whatever reason, the player pauses and, before they pass, LHO makes a legal call. By rule 28A this is considered to be in rotation.
However, the analogous situation: a player makes a BID out of turn at RHO's turn to call (director called, the bid not accepted and cancelled, followed by a pass by RHO) does not seem to be covered by law.
By Law 31A.1, offender must repeat the bid. However, suppose again that the player pauses and LHO makes a call that would be legal over offender's forced bid, but before the bid is actually repeated.
Common sense would seem to demand that the premature call is considered to be in rotation, but law 28 does not cover this case. Would the director be justified in ruling that the premature call is in rotation? The alternative seems to be a can of worms.
Alan Barnes
Comments
It would seem to me that the second call out of rotation (LHO) can be accepted or not. if it is accepted then the person who had to repeat the call has lost his turn (Law 16 and law 26 applies). If LHO's call is not accepted then it is cancelled - and the auction reverts to the player who has to repeat his original call. LHO can (of course) repeat his call since it is presumably comparable - presumably Law 23C applies in theory but I can't see how it would in practice; however he could change his mind, with the results as shown in 31A.2.
SO I don't think that it is a can of worms, but equally I don't think the TD can rule the call is in rotation.
Weejonnie, it still seems like a can of worms to me!
Consider, for definiteness, South deals and opens 1 !c , North bids 1 !s out of turn, not accepted. West now passes, North pauses before repeating his/her bid and East bids 2 !d .
If East bid is regarded as out of turn, then logically North's bid of 1 !s is regarded as never having been made. South has the option of accepting East bid; in which case South has UI of the 1 !s bid, but this presumably is authorised to E/W.
If it is not accepted, 2 !d is cancelled and the biding reverts to North who must still bid 1 !s. If East now bids 2 !d , is it comparable to his/her original 2 !d bid OOT? The jump overcall of 1 !c has become a simple overcall of 1 !s . And what if North, who by now has forgotten the original OOT bid must be repeated, bids something else? .......!!
In the same scenario, if East had bid 1 !h, and this is regarded as OOT but accepted by South, then presumably it is sufficient as the original 1 !s has been regarded as not repeated. If it is not accepted, the bidding reverts to North who perforce bids 1 !s, East's OOT bid is now insufficient and so the whole question of comparable bids and UI arises. Yet other scenarios arise if East had passed or doubled prematurely ....
How much simpler if the forced rebid of the OOT 1 !s is regarded has having been made.
East's bid is treated as in turn and as if the previous bidding had been 1 !c --P-- 1 !s without the original infraction. If it is legal there is no question of UI, whereas if it is insufficient, law 27 applies to East's bid without any additional complications.