[pran]

lamford, on 2019-April-07, 07:26, said:

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 ...

We are indeed - the real question here is: What exactly is meant by "varying" agreements and when (if ever) is such varying illegal after an irregularity by an opponent during the auction?

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-April-07, 08:17, said:

We are indeed - the real question here is: What exactly is meant by "varying" agreements and when (if ever) is such varying illegal after an irregularity by an opponent during the auction?

That's essentially the point I was trying to make.

If you have an agreement about an artificial bid like Bergen Raises, "varying" would include things like switching from Reverse Bergen to normal Bergen, or dropping the agreement after an irregularity.

It's unclear what this means when accepting an IB gives you a range of bids that would never be possible in a normal auction. You don't normally have agreements about those bids, so you can't really vary them. And the extra level of bidding also clearly allows for different meanings of the bids on the next level.