Thank you, just the information I need to better understand what happened, it is in the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations! Didn't see the definition in the Laws of Duplicate anywhere. So the bid was intended in this case, there was no question about that. And the TD did not fully recognize the irregularity, (but allowed the auction to continue normally after the offender repeated her bid.) The bid out of rotation was negated, and at my true turn to bid as dealer, I opened 1 C, LHO repeated her denomination (of bid out of rotation) of 1D, and the TD ruled that no further rectification was required. Offenders partner was allowed to bid 1S at his first turn to call, after my partner made a negative double sitting North. The hand was board 3 and can be seen here: http://www.santacruzbridge.org/locations/SCBC_MAIN/2017/results/R170705A.HTM ...we played the hand in 4 H, down one in the last round of the match for an average- result on the hand. It was crystal clear to all concerned that the bid out of rotation was an intended bid. Question: Was the TD ruling erroneous? how could this alleged inequity/irregularity be remedied at this stage, and/or what is an equitable remedy?
