Agreement about bidding over opponent's insufficient bid
#1
Posted 2012-October-08, 22:36
#2
Posted 2012-October-09, 00:58
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#3
Posted 2012-October-09, 01:26
RMB1, on 2012-October-09, 00:58, said:
Yes, there is. From http://www.abf.com.a...InRegGuid11.pdf : "Prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited."
(But I think this election is irrelevant in this situation.)
#4
Posted 2012-October-09, 01:47
gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 01:26, said:
Because the partnership is not "varying its understanding"?
(I am not disagreeing, just seeking to understand)
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#5
Posted 2012-October-09, 01:53
gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 01:26, said:
(But I think this election is irrelevant in this situation.)
That is an excellent regulation!
Note the specification: "by its own side" to "a response or an irregularity committed".
#6
Posted 2012-October-09, 02:03
RMB1, on 2012-October-09, 01:47, said:
(I am not disagreeing, just seeking to understand)
Yes. I have different understandings in different auctions. I have one set of understandings about 1♥ (1♠), and another about 1♥ (2♣). These aren't variations: they're two different auctions, so I have two different sets of understandings. If I have a third set of understandings about 1♥ (1♣), I'm not varying my understandings, I'm forming them.
As written, the ACBL
[Edited after Pran pointed out what the ABF rule actually says]
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-09, 02:10
#7
Posted 2012-October-09, 02:07
pran, on 2012-October-09, 01:53, said:
Note the specification: "by its own side" to "a response or an irregularity committed".
Ah, good point. The ABF regulation doesn't apply to Quantumcat's situation, because the infraction was by the opponents. So in answer to the original post, in Australia you're definitely allowed to have whatever agreements you like about using the extra space.
#8
Posted 2012-October-09, 02:23
pran, on 2012-October-09, 01:53, said:
Note the specification: "by its own side" to "a response or an irregularity committed".
Not quite excellent. The "by its own side" applies only to "committed", which applies only to "irregularity". You can't commit a question.
#9
Posted 2012-October-09, 06:30
gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 02:23, said:
Honestly! It is possible to "commit" both a question and an answer although I agree that this is not common languange.
The regulation
"Prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited."
contains a list of three elements:
1: a question asked,
2: a response to a question
3: an irregularity committed
and a qualifier "by its own side" to signify a further condition for when varying an understanding is prohibited.
This qualifier obviously applies to element 3 (the "closest" element), it is equally obvious that it cannot apply to element 1 or the regulation would be meaningless on this point.
So does the word "or" connect two alternative elements to both of which the qualifier applies or does it separate them to indicate that the qualifier only applies to the last ("closest") element?
Fortunately that question is immaterial for this discussion because here we discuss the situation after an irregularity.
The way I understand English grammar the relevant part of the regulation should have been written something like:
[...]following a question asked or answered, or an irregularity committed by its own side, is prohibited
if the intention is that the qualifier does not apply to response to a question.
#10
Posted 2012-October-09, 09:39
That's still ambiguous, though. To avoid that, it could be rewritten as "a question asked, or a response given or irregularity committed by its own side".
But personally I'd make it a bit longer and specify each item separately and completely. The Australian rule-makers seem to be competing with the WBFLC to cram as much material as they can into a single sentence, with as little punctuation as possible.
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-09, 09:56
#11
Posted 2012-October-09, 15:06
gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 09:39, said:
That's still ambiguous, though. To avoid that, it could be rewritten as "a question asked, or a response given or irregularity committed by its own side".
But personally I'd make it a bit longer and specify each item separately and completely. The Australian rule-makers seem to be competing with the WBFLC to cram as much material as they can into a single sentence, with as little punctuation as possible.
In my sugggestion to Grattan (under his law project) I wrote:
The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked by either side, a response to a question given by own side, or any irregularity by own side.