[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-October-05, 02:32, said:

"Following" as used today in Law 40B3 has exactly that implication and I do not see any problem with this.

I want "by own side" included in the clause on irregularities, a partnership should certainly not be prevented from legally enjoying favours made available by an opponent's irregularity. (e.g. the option to use extra bidding space resulting from an insufficient bid.)

There seem to be two things going on:

1) Suggested rewording to make the intent clearer, but not actually change the intent.

2) Suggested changes to the intent (e.g. allowing agreements that depend on the opponents' irregularities).

They should probably be dealt with separately, it's confusing when they get mixed together like this.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2012-October-05, 11:03, said:

There seem to be two things going on:

1) Suggested rewording to make the intent clearer, but not actually change the intent.

2) Suggested changes to the intent (e.g. allowing agreements that depend on the opponents' irregularities).

They should probably be dealt with separately, it's confusing when they get mixed together like this.

Are you saying that for instance after partner opens the auction with a 1♠ bid and your RHO bids 1♥ you may be prevented by regulation to accept this insufficient bid and bid 1♠ which logically must show weak spade support and not enough strength to bid at the 2-level? This is not a matter of pre-arranged agreements in case of irregularities but simple bridge logic.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-October-05, 10:59, said:

You're allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether it's weak or strong.

You're not allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether it's sufficient or insufficient, because you're not allowed to vary your defense based on an irregularity.

You're not allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether you learned about the strength range from a question or by reading the CC.

Against a sufficient 1NT opening, I play MultiLandy. Are you telling me that in the ACBL I must also play MultiLandy against an insufficient 1NT opening?

Think carefully before you answer.

[Vampyr]

I think that aquahombre's method (case 2; case 1 is clearly legal) must be legal in the ACBL if he normally plays that a cuebid and a jump cuebid show different types of raises. The fact that the jump cuebid is available on this particular hand only because there was an insufficient bid is, it seems to me, irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-05, 09:25, said:

So sorry. Didn't know you were in the process of posting. You have the power and skills to fix the misunderstanding by moving me from in-between?

Not possible with this software — but I have the power and skills to fix it by editing my post.

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-05, 12:05, said:

Against a sufficient 1NT opening, I play MultiLandy. Are you telling me that in the ACBL I must also play MultiLandy against an insufficient 1NT opening?

Think carefully before you answer.

This is obviously a trick question. The obvious answer is that an opening bid can never be insufficient, so the question is meaningless. Is there some loophole that makes it possible?

Or was the trick in realizing that an opening bid can never be insufficient, and I already saw through it?

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-October-05, 11:13, said:

Are you saying that for instance after partner opens the auction with a 1♠ bid and your RHO bids 1♥ you may be prevented by regulation to accept this insufficient bid and bid 1♠ which logically must show weak spade support and not enough strength to bid at the 2-level? This is not a matter of pre-arranged agreements in case of irregularities but simple bridge logic.

I believe you're allowed to apply bridge logic in this situation, and it's likely partner will figure out what's going on. I don't think you're allowed to have an explicit agreement about it.

This does raise a concern about this becoming an implicit understanding. However, I think that the logical interpretation can be considered general bridge knowledge, and the disclosure laws don't require this to be disclosed.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2012-October-07, 18:02, said:

I believe you're allowed to apply bridge logic in this situation, and it's likely partner will figure out what's going on. I don't think you're allowed to have an explicit agreement about it.

This does raise a concern about this becoming an implicit understanding. However, I think that the logical interpretation can be considered general bridge knowledge, and the disclosure laws don't require this to be disclosed.

The question is not about disclosure, it is whether such implicit partnership understanding is at all legal (in case there should happen to be some regulation forbidding varying understandings after opponents' irregularities).

My view is (and has always been) that if you and your partner are competent to understand such a varied understanding then you may freely apply it. My favourite experience is when in the Norwegian masters league some 30 years ago Arild Torp bid 4NT (Culbertson's 4-5 NT convention) his LHO bid 4♦ and I told Helge Vinje his rights. I saw stars twinkle in Helge's eyes when he accepted the 4♦ insufficient bid and deployed the extra bidding space given to him, trusting that Arild would understand the on the fly additions to their partnership understandings. (Both Arild and Helge were excellent bridge theorists.)

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-October-08, 01:10, said:

The question is not about disclosure, it is whether such implicit partnership understanding is at all legal (in case there should happen to be some regulation forbidding varying understandings after opponents' irregularities).

My feeling is that since it's just bridge logic it's not a "special partnership understanding", and thus not subject to convention regulation.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-October-08, 17:26, said:

My feeling is that since it's just bridge logic it's not a "special partnership understanding", and thus not subject to convention regulation.

While I don't disagree with you, I am willing to bet the ACBL will.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-October-07, 17:58, said:

This is obviously a trick question. The obvious answer is that an opening bid can never be insufficient, so the question is meaningless. Is there some loophole that makes it possible?

Or was the trick in realizing that an opening bid can never be insufficient, and I already saw through it?

Then I'm not sure what your point was. Earlier I said that the ACBL's rule doesn't prohibit agreements about how to bid over an insufficient bid. You replied "You're not allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether it's sufficient or insufficient."

When you said that, I assumed that you were disagreeing with me. If that was your intention, perhaps you'd better start with a meaningful example?

Alternatively, if your example was intended to support my argument, then I'm sorry I misunderstood.

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 01:21, said:

Then I'm not sure what your point was. Earlier I said that the ACBL's rule doesn't prohibit agreements about how to bid over an insufficient bid. You replied "You're not allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether it's sufficient or insufficient."

When you said that, I assumed that you were disagreeing with me. If that was your intention, perhaps you'd better start with a meaningful example?

Alternatively, if your example was intended to support my argument, then I'm sorry I misunderstood.

I made a mistake. I was performing simple substitution into an example, and didn't realize I'd created nonsense.

Change "vary your defense to 1NT" in that example to "vary your agreements over a 1NT overcall" and I think it works. I don't think the specific situation is relevant to understanding the general point I was making.

[aguahombre]

If anyone published a pocket book which translates Gnasher into Barmar, and vica versa, I would buy it.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-October-09, 09:41, said:

I made a mistake. I was performing simple substitution into an example, and didn't realize I'd created nonsense.

Change "vary your defense to 1NT" in that example to "vary your agreements over a 1NT overcall" and I think it works. I don't think the specific situation is relevant to understanding the general point I was making.

My partnership has understandings about actions after 1♣ (1NT). My partnership also has understandings about actions after 1♠ (1NT). They are two different auctions, and we have a separate set of understandings about each sequence.

We don't have any understanding about actions after 2♦ (1NT). If, however, we were to form such understandings, they would be understandngs about this specific sequence. We would not be varying our understandings, we would be forming understandings.

Exactly the same argument applies to any sequence where te opponents have made an insufficient bid and we choose to accept it.

[Zelandakh]

But Andy, say for argument's sake that you decide that 2♦ - (1NT) - X is going to be a weak takeout for the majors. You usually play 2♦ - (2NT) - X to show this exact same thing. So it makes no sense for not accepting the IB and then doubling over 2NT to have exactly the same meaning as accepting the IB and doubling. Is your position that you can also change the meaning of X after accepting 2NT, since it is not the same situation as without the IB, or are you stuck with both doubles having the same meaning? If the former then how do you square this with ACBL (et al) regulations; if the latter then why is the (unchanging) agreement that the lower double shows the majors and the higher double is penalty not allowed?

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-October-10, 06:36, said:

But Andy, say for argument's sake that you decide that 2♦ - (1NT) - X is going to be a weak takeout for the majors. You usually play 2♦ - (2NT) - X to show this exact same thing. So it makes no sense for not accepting the IB and then doubling over 2NT to have exactly the same meaning as accepting the IB and doubling. Is your position that you can also change the meaning of X after accepting 2NT, since it is not the same situation as without the IB, or are you stuck with both doubles having the same meaning?

Do you mean "Is your position that you can also change the meaning of X after rejecting 1NT and having 2NT substituted"?

If so, the answer is no, because you are playing

2♦ (infraction-then-2NT) dbl

as different from

2♦ (2NT) dbl

If the meaning of a sequence depends on whether an infraction has occurred, you are "varying your understandings following an infraction", which is not allowed in the ACBL.

Quote

if the latter then why is the (unchanging) agreement that the lower double shows the majors and the higher double is penalty not allowed?

Because the ACBL regulation says it's not.

[Zelandakh]

If our agreement is stated as:
"The lowest available double is for takeout. Any higher available double is for penalty,"
then how has the understanding been varied?

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-October-10, 08:53, said:

If our agreement is stated as:
"The lowest available double is for takeout. Any higher available double is for penalty,"
then how has the understanding been varied?

The problem, as has been amply paid out in this thread, is that the phrase "vary its understandings" is not what the lawmakers meant, and it does make any pre-existing agreements legal; what they were looking for, but managed not to find, is a phrase along the lines of "have agreements".

This is one of the many cases in which what the law actually says is nonsensical, and interpretation is needed to determine what, if any, content was intended. Thus your agreement above is illegal in the ACBL, since it presupposes an irregularity.

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2012-September-29, 02:42, said:

- Declarer leads from the wrong hand whilst cashing a suit. We can't have agreed that if we accept the lead we give attitude, but if we don't we give suit-preference.

I believe that this would be prohibited even in RAs that have not exercised the option -- accepting the lead (or not) can be seen as an illegal form of communication. What do others think about this?

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-10, 09:09, said:

I believe that this would be prohibited even in RAs that have not exercised the option -- accepting the lead (or not) can be seen as an illegal form of communication. What do others think about this?

Whether partner accepts or not, and that he chose to do so, is authorised - Law 16A1(c) "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws".