[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2017-August-07, 20:48, said:

Apparently a Regulatory Authority does not now even have the option to disallow prior agreements after a side's own irregularities. So as long as you have worked out good agreements, you are losing out if you don't commit irregularities frequently. This is going to be fun.

Surely the RA can simply designate such an agreement as a "special partnership understanding". One can certainly argue that having such agreements is not "readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" (40B1(b)). Then 40B2(a)(i) lets the RA ban it outright.

[pran]

 Tramticket, on 2017-August-07, 13:18, said:

This definition is a bit fuzzy - it is "possible" (but unlikely in the year 2017) to define a pass as any hand with fewer than 13 points. Come to that, it is a "possible" meaning of pass to define it as 0-15 HCP. Any takers?

It is certainly possible, but be aware that if a system allows PASS in an opening position to show more HCP than any opening bid at the one-level in the same position then the system is automatically HUM.

[weejonnie]

 Vampyr, on 2017-August-07, 20:48, said:

Apparently a Regulatory Authority does not now even have the option to disallow prior agreements after a side's own irregularities. So as long as you have worked out good agreements, you are losing out if you don't commit irregularities frequently. This is going to be fun.

Fortunately law 72B is there to help

B. Infraction of Law

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

So it appears there is no reason why you can't have agreements in place to help you following your own irregularity, but you must not intentionally commit an irregularity so you can use them. I think having a recorder form completed whenever a pair with this sort of agreement ever commits an irregularity is de rigeur.

(And what is the difference between having an agreement that if a comparable call is not available, all responses to 1NT are natural, not a transfer? Otherwise you get this.

(after a pass out of turn, not accepted)

1NT : Pass : 2♦ * announced as 'Hearts' : All Pass.

Obviously the description of the hand is incorrect (unless the pair are idiots), but can the NT caller (in a different auction where opponents compete) assume partner has diamonds instead of hearts AND, since the NT bidder will be forbidden from leading a suit not specified in the legal auction, can he be forbidden from leading diamonds (which have technically not been shown in the auction) or hearts (which have been shown in the auction but every one knows their partner does not have?)

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2017-August-08, 01:15, said:

It is certainly possible, but be aware that if a system allows PASS in an opening position to show more HCP than any opening bid at the one-level in the same position then the system is automatically HUM.

Especially in the ACBL, where HUM is not a regulatory concept at all (except that highly unusual methods must be alerted).

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-09, 06:53, said:

Especially in the ACBL, where HUM is not a regulatory concept at all (except that highly unusual methods must be alerted).

Does this mean that HUM is permissible at ordinary club levels? (By regulation we only allow HUM at the very highest levels like national finals)

[barmar]

 pran, on 2017-August-09, 07:30, said:

Does this mean that HUM is permissible at ordinary club levels? (By regulation we only allow HUM at the very highest levels like national finals)

ACBL has system regulations (GCC, Mid-Chart, Superchart), and some of the prohibitions are analogous to some HUM agreements (e.g. forcing pass). But ACBL doesn't refer to HUM specifically.

[sfi]

 sfi, on 2017-August-07, 22:03, said:

Surely the RA can simply designate such an agreement as a "special partnership understanding". One can certainly argue that having such agreements is not "readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" (40B1(b)). Then 40B2(a)(i) lets the RA ban it outright.

Upon reflection, it seems even more straightforward to stop people from having the sort of agreements described by Vampyr. Law 16C2 tells us information from the withdrawn call is unauthorised for the offending side. But they would have to know about the withdrawn call to ever use these agreements.

So no regulation required.

[BudH]

 Vampyr, on 2017-August-07, 20:48, said:

Apparently a Regulatory Authority does not now even have the option to disallow prior agreements after a side's own irregularities. So as long as you have worked out good agreements, you are losing out if you don't commit irregularities frequently. This is going to be fun.

I saw a law change allowing (unless not allowed by the Regulating Authority) to all agreements when the OPPONENTS commit an irregularity.

[jvage]

I didn't see anyone answering what it seemed was the main question in the original post, namely if this was "rub of the green" (as it seems the OP thinks) or if it should be adjusted after the play using the new 23C. This is assuming 2NT is allowed as a "comparable call", which I agree is far from obvious, and may depend on opening style (in my area good players open so many 11 points hands that 2NT for many would show a minimum opening...).

The text in 23C is not clear, but my understanding of the intention of the lawmakers is that this sort of results (the offenders being lucky because they had to pick a "comparable call" instead of their normal call) is one of the reasons to adjust, and 23C should be applied here.

There was an example used in the Prague seminar (where Gordon and probably some other regular posters also attended) about the introduction of the 2017 laws that seems relevant. I don't remember the case exactly (it was a bit more complicated) where one player bid an insufficient 1♠ following 1♦ (from partner) - 2♣. He had something like 4333 and opening strength, and the normal bid of a negative double was not allowed as a comparable call (because the insufficient bid said he had longer spades than hearts). He bid 2♠ (showing 5+ spades), allowed as a comparable call, and they were lucky when 4♠ in a 43-fit worked better than the normal 3NT. If I remember correctly this was used as an example of the use of 23C, the board should be adjusted after play finished.

[par31]

 BudH, on 2017-August-06, 19:39, said:

The laws say my great score can be taken away if the result might well have been different AND ADDITIONALLY the opponents were damaged. I think it can be easily argued the opponents were not damaged. They were just very unlucky. The words "damaged" and "unlucky" are not the same. We've all seen an insufficient bidder take a wild guess with his partner required to pass and bid 3NT and then get a very lucky lie of the cards to allow the contract to make for a top and a bottom for the opponents. The "unlucky" opponents. Not "damaged" opponents.

I think the opponents have been damaged in both cases, but only receive a score adjustment in the first.

12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." This applies in both cases.

12A says that the Director can award an adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so.

In the first case, this power is conferred by 23C.

In the second case, there is nothing permitting a score adjustment. 27B prescribes the rectification for the irregularity (offender's partner must pass throughout) and 12B2 indicates that the Director may not award an adjusted score because the rectification is too advantageous to OS.

[BudH]

 jvage, on 2017-August-14, 06:39, said:

I didn't see anyone answering what it seemed was the main question in the original post, namely if this was "rub of the green" (as it seems the OP thinks) or if it should be adjusted after the play using the new 23C. This is assuming 2NT is allowed as a "comparable call", which I agree is far from obvious, and may depend on opening style (in my area good players open so many 11 points hands that 2NT for many would show a minimum opening...).

The text in 23C is not clear, but my understanding of the intention of the lawmakers is that this sort of results (the offenders being lucky because they had to pick a "comparable call" instead of their normal call) is one of the reasons to adjust, and 23C should be applied here.

There was an example used in the Prague seminar (where Gordon and probably some other regular posters also attended) about the introduction of the 2017 laws that seems relevant. I don't remember the case exactly (it was a bit more complicated) where one player bid an insufficient 1♠ following 1♦ (from partner) - 2♣. He had something like 4333 and opening strength, and the normal bid of a negative double was not allowed as a comparable call (because the insufficient bid said he had longer spades than hearts). He bid 2♠ (showing 5+ spades), allowed as a comparable call, and they were lucky when 4♠ in a 43-fit worked better than the normal 3NT. If I remember correctly this was used as an example of the use of 23C, the board should be adjusted after play finished.

If your Prague example is correct, then in my example Law 23C should adjust the score due to responder adjusting his call from the more likely call to a different call which is comparable to keep partner in the auction.

This is why we need a dozen examples with approved interpretations, especially so we know (1) when Law 23C applies, and (2) how similar does a call need to be to be considered comparable when it really isn't quite meeting the "subset rule".

[weejonnie]

So the situation is basically : if the comparable call turns out to be much better and if it has only been made as a comparable call, then we adjust. If the comparable call would have been made anyway in the new auction then there is no damage.

[blackshoe]

My head hurts.

[weejonnie]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-22, 09:09, said:

My head hurts.

When we get case-law then it will be easier. If I may expand:

In a normal auction there are going to be a series of final contracts - some of which may be good ones that go down, some will make - with overtricks possibly.

If a pair reach a high-scoring contract which they would not have reached without the recourse to a comparable call, then we adjust the score. To illustrate (EBL simulation)

---

This shows the final auction. The initial auction went.

1D :: 1S - i.e. West bid before South (1D = better minor - 1NT = 12-14)

North was offered th eopportunity to accept the call and refused: the call was cancelled and South overcalled 2C: West bid 2S which was accepted as a comparable call (I agree - even if 2S by agreement showed 5 spades, since a hand showing 5 spades and 9-12 points is a subset of a hand showing 4+ spades and 6 - 14 points)

Because West bid at the 2 level (most people wouldn't - they would probably double, but this might not be a comparable call) EW got into their 23 point 4-spade contract.

Without the assistance of the comparable call the auction would probably have died in 2 Spades (A double would normally show a weaker hand than West is showing)

Thus we decide what is likely to have happened - if some pairs bid to 4S but most did not then we would weigh the final result as e.g. 80% NS -170, 20% NS -420.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-22, 09:09, said:

My head hurts.

LOL. All of the club directors will have heads that hurt, ruling on an insufficient bid or a call out of rotation nearly every session. Meanwhile, these will hardly ever happen in high level events, so it will take possibly YEARS to build up a reasonable number of cases from those sources.

[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2017-August-22, 19:22, said:

LOL. All of the club directors will have heads that hurt, ruling on an insufficient bid or a call out of rotation nearly every session. Meanwhile, these will hardly ever happen in high level events, so it will take possibly YEARS to build up a reasonable number of cases from those sources.

On the contrary, club directors will more often be able to just allow the auction to continue and not have to invoke laws that involve penalties or adjustments.

[barmar]

Is this really that much different from the 2007 Law, which required the TD to determine if the replacement has "the same meaning or a more precise meaning" than the IB?

The big change is that the rectification of insufficient bids was extended to calls out of turn, so TDs may have to think about this more often now.

[weejonnie]

 barmar, on 2017-August-23, 13:09, said:

Is this really that much different from the 2007 Law, which required the TD to determine if the replacement has "the same meaning or a more precise meaning" than the IB?

The big change is that the rectification of insufficient bids was extended to calls out of turn, so TDs may have to think about this more often now.

The major change is the addition of "The same purpose" - this means, to quote the usual example, that replacing 2♣ (stayman) over 2NT with 3♣ (puppet Stayman or whatever) is now allowed. In addition transfer bids are now allowed by default (instead of the 'incotrevertibly not artificial' limitation)

Also 'A similar' meaning is now allowed - thus an overcall instead of an opening bid is probably OK whereas before you could argue that as an overcall could be based on lower HCPs then it could be banned. Now it is similar (A specified suit and sufficient values to enter the auction)

[BudH]

 weejonnie, on 2017-August-23, 14:41, said:

Also 'A similar' meaning is now allowed - thus an overcall instead of an opening bid is probably OK whereas before you could argue that as an overcall could be based on lower HCPs then it could be banned. Now it is similar (A specified suit and sufficient values to enter the auction)

If opening bids usually have X HCP and one-level overcalls usually have a minimum of Y HCP, X and Y need to moderately close to reasonably be considered "comparable".

For many pairs, X and Y might be 7 and 11. Is an ace difference close enough? VERY debatable.

[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2017-August-23, 16:57, said:

If opening bids usually have X HCP and one-level overcalls usually have a minimum of Y HCP, X and Y need to moderate close to reasonably be considered "comparable".

For many pairs, X and Y might be 7 and 11. Is an ace difference close enough? VERY debatable.

Not close enough for me. I am however happy that most people's two-level over calls are comparable to opening bids.