[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-16, 09:24, said:

The last sentence of Law 29B reads "the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies."

Another case of incomplete quotation!

Law 29B said:

Unless A applies, a call out of rotation is cancelled and the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call. Offender may make any legal call in proper rotation, but his side may be subject to the provisions for rectification in Law 30, 31 or 32.

and the Reference to Laws 30, 31 and 32 must not be overlooked or forgotten. The relevant Law among these always applies when a call out of rotation is cancelled according to Law 29B.

blackshoe, on 2015-April-16, 09:24, said:

According to the laws, "cancelled" means the same thing as "withdrawn" so it seems clear that dealer's RHO's bid in this case is not "cancelled". In fact, it never happened — except that inferences from this bid that "never happened" are UI to the OS ("Law 16D2 applies"). Note that 16D2 applies, not 16D1, so inferences from the bid are not authorized to the NOS. If the lawmakers had wanted those inferences to be AI, the law would say "Law 16D applies".

So in this case West must pass whenever it is his turn to call. (Law 31B)

(During the auction in progress! There is a tale about a player who had received such a ruling and then consistently passed during the next three weeks - until finally someone discovered and clarified the misunderstanding.)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-April-16, 10:21, said:

Another case of incomplete quotation!

My mistake. I was quoting the last sentence of 28B. My quote of that sentence is indeed complete.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-16, 09:24, said:

... — except that inferences from this bid that "never happened" are UI to the OS ("Law 16D2 applies"). Note that 16D2 applies, not 16D1, so inferences from the bid are not authorized to the NOS. -snip-

I suggest reading the law again. Creating UI in 16D2 arises from canceled/withdrawn calls.

[blackshoe]

Okay, then. Law 28B says 16D2 applies, so how, in your opinion, does it apply?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-16, 21:08, said:

Okay, then. Law 28B says 16D2 applies, so how, in your opinion, does it apply?

Isn't that obvious?

Law 28B, on 2015-April-16, 21:08, said:

[...] The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies.

The enhanced part of Law 28B makes it clear that the call out of turn must be considered made and withdrawn for the purpose of applying Law 16D2 (although it shall have no other effect on the auction or play).

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-April-17, 03:18, said:

Isn't that obvious?

The enhanced part of Law 28B makes it clear that the call out of turn must be considered made and withdrawn for the purpose of applying Law 16D2 (although it shall have no other effect on the auction or play).

Not obvious to Axman, apparently.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-16, 21:08, said:

Okay, then. Law 28B says 16D2 applies, so how, in your opinion, does it apply?

The condition under which 16D2 speaks is not met.

[pran]

axman, on 2015-April-17, 07:44, said:

The condition under which 16D2 speaks is not met.

Now I am really curious. What condition do you have in mind?

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2015-April-17, 07:44, said:

The condition under which 16D2 speaks is not met.

And so? Are you saying that 16D2 does not apply? If that were true, I would conclude that 16D2 can never apply to 28B cases. Are you claiming that the law is that fundamentally flawed?

[axman]

pran, on 2015-April-17, 08:28, said:

Now I am really curious. What condition do you have in mind?

16D2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

Notice the bold and notice that 28B does not withdraw/ cancel the COOT.

[pran]

axman, on 2015-April-17, 10:06, said:

16D2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

Notice the bold and notice that 28B does not withdraw/ cancel the COOT.

Oh COME ON!

Are you completely unable to understand what has already been pointed out:

Law 28B explicitly qualifies for Law 16D2 to be applicable.

If you need the "i"s to be dotted and the "t"s to be crossed then observe that Law 28B says:

The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn, but Law 16D2 applies.

It doesn't say that the COOT was not made, instead it says that the COOT is withdrawn/cancelled without other consequences on the auction than those imposed by Law 16D2.

The effect is of course that offender's partner may not use any information that is available from the COOT.

Do you understand this now?

[blackshoe]

Not cancelled, I think, but voided. It "never happened" but there is nonetheless still a 16D2 constraint on the partner of the one who bid out of turn.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-17, 12:33, said:

Not cancelled, I think, but voided. It "never happened" but there is nonetheless still a 16D2 constraint on the partner of the one who bid out of turn.

The only place you find the word "void" in the laws is

Law 46B4 said:

If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

but

Definitions in the laws said:

Withdrawn Actions said to be ‘withdrawn’ include actions that are ‘cancelled’ and cards that are ‘retracted’.

so I think we can safely consider a call out of turn as "happened" and in case "withdrawn" under Law 28B.

[blackshoe]

I think we can safely consider "The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn" as "it never happened" or even "it is void".