[lamford]

The auction went:
1♠ - X - 4♠ - Pass
Pass - 3♦
The next hand pointed out that 3♦ was insufficient, and the player substituted double before I arrived at the table. I offered the next player the option to accept double, but he declined to do so, but he did want to accept the 3♦ call and bid 4♠ again. Don't ask me why! The question is whether the next hand is silenced for one round (which is how I interpreted the law) or whether acceptance of the 3♦ call frees her to bid.

[blackshoe]

Law 27C said:

If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A above allows, the substitution stands.

Law 27A said:

Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO.

Once the 4♠ bidder accepts the original IB the provisions of Law 27B regarding who can bid what, lead penalties and so on, do not apply. The legal auction is now 1♠-3♦-4♠- (the original 4♠ call will have been cancelled, this 4♠ is the call that player wished to make over 3♦), and all the players can bid what they like. 3♦ bidder's partner has UI from the bidder's attempt to change 3♦ to X (which attempt, btw, is probably illegal, and would have been cancelled had the IB not been accepted - see Law 27B3).

[PeterE]

I think Ed misread the OP and lamford misread the law.

The first round of the auction was
1♠ (X) 4♠ (pass)
and the second started with
pass (3♦)

Now the IBer changed his IB with a premature X.

The TD should have read Law 27 C (cited above) and ask the next player (the 4♠ guy) whether he accepts the 3♦ (not the X).

Now,
A) if he accepts (seems to be his truly desire ) the auctions continues at the point of 3♦ and the (second) X is cancelled and subject to Law 16 D.

B ) if he does not accept 3♦, the (second) X stands and

Law 27 B3 said:

except as provided in B1(b ) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and his partner must then pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

applies, which means that
i) the (second) X is cancelled;
ii) that player has to substitute it with a sufficient bid or a pass;
iii) his partner is barred for the remainder of the auction;
iv) Law 26 will apply, if the OS will be defenders;
v) Law 23 may apply.

[blackshoe]

Peter's right, both in that I misread the OP, and in his ruling.

[lamford]

Yes, I agree with Peter - the double was not an insufficient bid, and therefore the next player cannot be given the chance to accept it and I presume that if he did before I arrived it is treated as in 36A.

[axman]

lamford, on Aug 24 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

The auction went:
1♠ - X - 4♠ - Pass
Pass - 3♦

Perhaps it might be interesting to change the situation a bit, specifically the TD having given the ruling, the 3D was not accepted, and instead of attempting to substitute a double, the player does substitute a double.

[PeterE]

see my ruling B upthread

[gordontd]

I can see no reason why L27B3 should not apply.