[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2019-April-04, 06:23, said:

(By the way, I've found that offender's LHO often should accept the illegal call so that offender's partner is often at a guess at what offender was trying to do. If he doesn't accept it, offender often gets to clear up the ambiguity.)

I've always been a big fan of accepting Insufficient bids.

[Cyberyeti]

 gordontd, on 2019-April-04, 06:52, said:

I've always been a big fan of accepting Insufficient bids.

Is it legal to have the arrangement that if you accept and X it's takeout, if you don't and double the same denomination one up it's penalties regardless of what the double would normally mean ?

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-04, 07:08, said:

Is it legal to have the arrangement that if you accept and X it's takeout, if you don't and double the same denomination one up it's penalties regardless of what the double would normally mean ?

Quote

LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
B. Special Partnership Understandings
2. (a) The Regulating Authority:
(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a
partnership to vary its understandings
during the auction or play following an
irregularity committed by the opponents.

Quote

EBU White Book 1.6.4 Law book options
Certain laws have Regulating Authority options. Those applicable to EBU events are:

(d) Under Law 40B2 (a) (iv), a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its
understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity
committed by the opponents.

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks Gordon, so as I understand you the answer is yes in EBUland but may vary elsewhere.

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-04, 08:44, said:

Thanks Gordon, so as I understand you the answer is yes in EBUland but may vary elsewhere.

Exactly.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-04, 08:44, said:

Thanks Gordon, so as I understand you the answer is yes in EBUland but may vary elsewhere.

In ACBL it's not legal.
ACBL OPTIONS UNDER THE LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE

Quote

A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked a response to a question or any irregularity.

[pescetom]

Not legal in FIGB either.
Italian Regulations

[weejonnie]

Wonder where the laws give a NBO the power to ban players from varying their calls consequent on their own irregularity.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2019-April-04, 09:36, said:

In ACBL it's not legal.
ACBL OPTIONS UNDER THE LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE

This is a pity, because if a situation happens and the opponents turn out to be on the same wavelength, the second time they find themselves in the same situation they will not be permitted to take any action.

Also they may not discuss the hand ever, either between themselves of with their friends.

 weejonnie, on 2019-April-05, 09:22, said:

Wonder where the laws give a NBO the power to ban players from varying their calls consequent on their own irregularity.

The laws used to say “any irregularity”, which covers it. Has there been a correction?

[pran]

One simple question:
(This scenario actually occurred in a masters league I directed back in 1980!

North bid (jumped to) 4NT which was a slightly advanced version of Blackwood at the time.
East bid 4♦ (!) and I was called.

My ruling was (Law 27A1 of course) that South could accept the insufficient bid and continue his auction from the (now legal) 4♦ bid.

Both North and South were very competent players who were able to make use of the now available extra calls and trust that they both would assign the same understanding to these extra calls without any consultation between them.

This was obviously a matter of varying their agreements following an opponent's irregularity and I did point out that while they were not allowed any kind of discussion between them about agreements and understandings, they were absolutely free to use these "undiscussed" calls.

It is still one of my brightest memories to see the twinkling in Helge Vinje's eyes (he was South) when he realized the opportunity that had been given to them on this board. (I have no idea of whether or not they eventually gained from the situation.)

Do I understand (for instance) ACBL correct that they consider my ruling a Director's error, and that South should not (with the confidence that North would understand him correctly) be allowed to make any use of the calls: Double, 4♥, 4♠ or 4NT in this particular situation ?

Such understanding by ACBL certainly makes Law 27A1 ridiculous.

[weejonnie]

 Vampyr, on 2019-April-05, 09:59, said:

This is a pity, because if a situation happens and the opponents turn out to be on the same wavelength, the second time they find themselves in the same situation they will not be permitted to take any action.

Also they may not discuss the hand ever, either between themselves of with their friends.



The laws used to say “any irregularity”, which covers it. Has there been a correction?

The current law 40B2(a) states

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the
auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

The 2007 law stated

3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership
to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a
question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

Of course for many of the irregularities, law 16B would kick in i.e. they must not know that their partner has committed an irregularity - and if they could have known at the time of the irregularity that it would damage the opponents we can adjust under 72C (this, amongst other things would stop a deliberate irregularity to change agreements, of course other laws do the same.) The fact that partner has asked a question is UI, even though the question itself and the answer to the question is AI.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-April-05, 10:46, said:

One simple question:
(This scenario actually occurred in a masters league I directed back in 1980!

North bid (jumped to) 4NT which was a slightly advanced version of Blackwood at the time.
East bid 4♦ (!) and I was called.

My ruling was (Law 27A1 of course) that South could accept the insufficient bid and continue his auction from the (now legal) 4♦ bid.

Both North and South were very competent players who were able to make use of the now available extra calls and trust that they both would assign the same understanding to these extra calls without any consultation between them.

North and South are allowed to have an agreement that they play DOPI over any overcall. They are not allowed to VARY that after an insufficient bid, but the key word is VARY. In playing DOPI over any overcall, sufficient or insufficient, they are not varying it. So, they are actually obliged to play DOPI here, if that is what they play over sufficient bids.

Similarly after the auction 1S-(1H) it is permitted to have an agreement that you play negative doubles after overcalls up to, say 3S. You are not varying your agreement if you double here to show both minors - in any jurisdiction.

[blackshoe]

 weejonnie, on 2019-April-05, 13:06, said:

they must not know that their partner has committed an irregularity

They must report immediately to the Department of Mental Hygiene to have that knowledge wiped from their mind.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2019-April-05, 15:20, said:

North and South are allowed to have an agreement that they play DOPI over any overcall. They are not allowed to VARY that after an insufficient bid, but the key word is VARY. In playing DOPI over any overcall, sufficient or insufficient, they are not varying it. So, they are actually obliged to play DOPI here, if that is what they play over sufficient bids.

Similarly after the auction 1S-(1H) it is permitted to have an agreement that you play negative doubles after overcalls up to, say 3S. You are not varying your agreement if you double here to show both minors - in any jurisdiction.

So what you say is that South is not allowed to bid (for instance) 4♠?
South (Helge Vinje) was a very competent system designer and discussed many of his ideas with his partner (who incidentally was a very good friend of mine).
Helge could see what understanding of an otherwise illegal call would be natural in a situation like this had it been legal, and expect his partner to arrive at the same understanding.
(Helge Vinje became world famous for his ground breaking book in 1980: "New Ideas in Defensive Play in Bridge". Many of his ideas in that book are "standard" today.)

Essentially what you say is that no players are allowed to use their competence to take advantage of Law 27A1 even when they have not established any (previous) agreements for such possibilities?

A consequence of this view is that no player is ever allowed to make any call which must be explained as "undiscussed" in a situation where an opponent has committed an irregularity?

[pran]

 lamford, on 2019-April-05, 15:20, said:

[...]
Similarly after the auction 1S-(1H) it is permitted to have an agreement that you play negative doubles after overcalls up to, say 3S. You are not varying your agreement if you double here to show both minors - in any jurisdiction.

Would you allow the bid: 1♠- 1♥ - 1♠ and what understanding(s) would you accept on the 1♠ response bid?

(I might "naturally" use that response bid to show a normal length spade support but less than 6 HCP.)

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2019-April-06, 04:10, said:

Would you allow the bid: 1♠- 1♥ - 1♠ and what understanding(s) would you accept on the 1♠ response bid?

(I might "naturally" use that response bid to show a normal length spade support but less than 6 HCP.)

This is probably pretty standard but is presumably illegal in the ACBL.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2019-April-06, 05:20, said:

This is probably pretty standard but is presumably illegal in the ACBL.

It depends on what you consider the normal agreement to be.

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level, then the second 1♠ would fit that definition, so it should have the same meaning as in a normal 1♠-(2♥)-2♠ auction.

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level higher than partner's bid, then you would have to bid 2♠ to show 6-10 (even though this is now a jump), and this 1♠ doesn't have a normal meaning. If there's no normal agreement, is there something to "vary"?

I wonder if this is really the kind of thing they were thinking of when they wrote that Law. I suspect they were really thinking about conventional bids, like you can't agree to play that Bergen Raises are off after an irregularity. I don't think they wanted to prohibit use of bridge logic, or being able to come up with the same improvisation repeatedly because partner might remember the last time.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2019-April-06, 14:02, said:

It depends on what you consider the normal agreement to be.

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level, then the second 1♠ would fit that definition, so it should have the same meaning as in a normal 1♠-(2♥)-2♠ auction.

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level higher than partner's bid, then you would have to bid 2♠ to show 6-10 (even though this is now a jump), and this 1♠ doesn't have a normal meaning. If there's no normal agreement, is there something to "vary"?

I wonder if this is really the kind of thing they were thinking of when they wrote that Law. I suspect they were really thinking about conventional bids, like you can't agree to play that Bergen Raises are off after an irregularity. I don't think they wanted to prohibit use of bridge logic, or being able to come up with the same improvisation repeatedly because partner might remember the last time.

I typically "reserve" the "raise" (1S - 1H - 1S) to show a hand that would have been passed under normal circumstances, but uses the "extra" bid made available to show a limited support to partner's opening bid. Frankly I believe this is standard without any previous agreement and immediately understood by any player.

From what we learned in 1980, and substantiated by the EBL commentary in 1992 to the 1987 laws, I understand that the purpose of Law 27A1 was to give the non-offending side the benefit of having more bidding space at the cost of waving any penalty to the offending side.

Prohibiting agreements to be varied as a result of your own actions makes sense whether such actions are irregularities, or information given (e.g. in reply to questions from opponents).

It makes no sense to prohibit varying agreements as a result of opponents' irregularities, or information received (e.g. in reply to questions to opponents).

I may obviously have every reason to vary my agreements depending on explanations given by opponents.

[sanst]

With my partner I have the agreement that we don’t accept a BOOT or IB if we would pass when accepting it. Is this agreement allowed or not and is this dependent on the jurisdiction?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-April-06, 04:10, said:

Would you allow the bid: 1♠- 1♥ - 1♠ and what understanding(s) would you accept on the 1♠ response bid?

(I might "naturally" use that response bid to show a normal length spade support but less than 6 HCP.)

Yes I would allow it. Law 40A3 states:
A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

I would allow, in the EBU, any discussed (and disclosed) agreement. In other jursidictions I would allow this to be a minimum spade raise, which is not varying the agreement from the legal auction 1S-(2H)-2S which is a minimum spade raise.

But I think we are moving away from comparable calls ...