[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-05, 19:43, said:

Other RAs permit varying one's agreements, so the question does not arise.

Some do. Do they all?

[rmnka447]

I have no idea whether the proposed agreements about your actions after an insufficient bids are legal or not.

I suspect they may not be because, as far as I know, the only legal way to convey information to partner in an auction is with a pass, a bid, a double, or a redouble.

However, if they would be found legal, then you must disclose whatever information is exchanged by the action taken to accept or not accept the insufficient bid.

[aguahombre]

rmnka447, on 2015-May-05, 22:45, said:

However, if they would be found legal, then you must disclose whatever information is exchanged by the action taken to accept or not accept the insufficient bid.

Our "disclosure" would be of the agreement about any call or bid (lower than 2C) after accepting the IB -- not the act of accepting the bid at the time it is accepted; the disclosure involved in accepting the bid and then bidding something higher than 1NT would be that Responder wanted to be able to make that bid and that it is the same bid he would have made after an intervening Pass.

I don't see any disclosure necessary for "not accepting" the insufficient bid. The reason would be obvious; Responder would rather defend, and is hoping there is no replacement bid allowed without barring LHO.

[helene_t]

Shugart23, on 2015-May-05, 16:55, said:

Can we maybe agree to disagree and move make to my original question ? Assume it is legal, what is a good partnership agreement where bidding has gone 1NT (1 of a minor; accepted) - ?, where ? is either a double, a cue bid, a pass , or 1NT

What about, after they bid 1♣ (accepted):
dbl=t/o
1♦=4+hearts
1♥=4+spades
1♠=4+hearts and longer diamonds
1NT=natural invite
2♣=5+diamonds
2♦=junk multi
2♥=5♥4♠, weak
2♠=4♠6♦, weak

[Shugart23]

thanks...yeah, I am on vacation and maybe will think on it....We play transfer lebensohl over our weak NT, so I'm currently thinking of figuring out some type of scheme consistent with that, only lower by 1 level...I like your transfer scheme....I am currently think a double might possible be best used as Stayman.

I also don't see why people are hung up on the notion that we might be 'varying' our bidding scheme.....1NT-(Pass) - ? is entirely independent/different than 1NT -(2H) -? which is entirely different than 1NT - (1C accepted) -?......I am not buying into the notion that the rule that was brought up earlier, has anything to do with this discussion

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-05, 16:24, said:

I have wondered what people playing under such regulations do. OK, the first time you do it one way, then the next the opposite in order not to have an implicit agreement... but now you are out of options? What do you do the third time? Is there any call you can make?

If you're just using "bridge logic", you can do the same thing repeatedly, since the logic doesn't change. You're not forced to come up with a different meaning each time just to avoid creating an implicit agreement.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2015-May-05, 16:05, said:

How can you not vary your agreements here? Is 1nt lebensohl or to play? 2nt is?

Yeah, there's something vague about the concept.

But it's kind of like to the law about what happens when an insufficient bidder corrects their bid -- there are different rules depending on whether the replacement has a similar meaning to the original. This has resulted in lots of confusion because it's not clear what the meaning of the insufficient bid is in the first place (it generally depends on why he made the insufficient bid -- did he not see the earlier bids, or did he just think they were a level lower?).

The answer in both cases is we try to make the best determination we can of what these things mean.

[nige1]

An example that features in discussions of insufficient bids in jurisdictions where the law forbids you to vary your agreements. You deal and the auction is
4♠ (4♥) Double (after the director has told partner his options)
After an opponent's overcall, your normal agreement would have been double for T/O.
You might argue, however, by bridge logic rather than by agreement, this double should be for penalties.
The problem is that after this kind of thing has happened a few times you have an implicit agreement. Even worse for the partnership is to participate in an on-line discussion like this.

Similar situations arise after a bid out of turn and so on.

Even in jurisdictions, where you are allowed to vary your agreements, legislators seem to be inconsistent. They should provide appropriate convention cards, with many extra pages, to allow you to specify such agreements. And local regulations should ensure that such agreements conform to their system-restrictions.

Bridge law experts (AFAIR, even WBFLC members) disagree about interpretations.

Of course, this gross farce could be avoided: Legislators could cleanse the rules of the daft and unnecessary player-options after infractions. That would make the rules fairer -- and much simpler Unfortunately, it would reduce the fun for law-makers, directors, and discussion-groups

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2015-May-07, 12:00, said:

After an opponent's overcall, your normal agreement would have been double for T/O. [/size]
You might argue, however, by bridge logic rather than agreement, this double should be for penalties.
The problem is that after this kind of thing has happened a few times you have an implicit agreement. Even worse for the partnership is to participate in an on-line discussion like this.

Not at all. Your normal agreement after a "normal" overcall has nothing to do with an agreement after an insufficient undercall. You could have an agreement and you would not be varying anything.

This post assumes you do have the agreement that, for instance, 4H (4S) Dbl is for takeout --- in itself pretty silly.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-07, 12:26, said:

Not at all. Your normal agreement after a "normal" overcall has nothing to do with an agreement after an insufficient undercall. You could have an agreement and you would not be varying anything. This post assumes you do have the agreement that, for instance, 4H (4S) Dbl is for takeout --- in itself pretty silly.

TFLB L40B3 said:

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.

My example may be poor. It makes more sense with a bid out of turn. The main points are valid, however: Directors seem divided on interpretation; and law-makers created this unnecessary problem by granting options to players after infractions.

L40B3 seems weird, in other ways. Does it mean that you are allowed to vary your agreements when partner asks a question? Are law-breakers allowed to vary their agreements as well as their victims?

[Trinidad]

Ok. I can understand that after:

1NT-(1♥...2♥)-

I will have to play whatever I would have played after 1NT-(2♥)- (e.g. Lebensohl)

I can follow a line of reasoning (though I do not necessarily agree) that after 1NT-(1♥)-

I am not allowed have an agreement to a different meaning for the bids of 2♠ and higher. (They have to be Lebensohl too.)

However, I don't have any agreements about:
1♠
1NT

since these bids would not have been available to me without the irregularity.

Suppose that I write the following method in my system book:

Imaginary system book 1.0 said:

1NT-(2♦/♥/♠)-
     Lebensohl
1NT-(1♦/♥/♠)-
     1x NAT, 4+ cards, F1
     Lebensohl

I could even write:

Imaginary system book 2.0 said:

1NT-(any interference below 2NT)-
     Dbl penalty at the two level, takeout at the one level
     1x Nat, 4+ cards, F1
     2x Nat, NF
     2NT Puppet to 3♣
     3x etc. ...

How am I then varying my methods depending on the irregularity? I could argue that the method is the same whether there is an irregularity or not. It's just that part of my method isn't available to me when the opponents are uncooperative and play by the rules.

Rik

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2015-May-07, 12:00, said:

Even in jurisdictions, where you are allowed to vary your agreements, legislators seem to be inconsistent. They should provide appropriate convention cards, with many extra pages,

Yes, this should work...

nige1, on 2015-May-07, 12:51, said:

L40B3 seems weird, in other ways. Does it mean that you are allowed to vary your agreements when partner asks a question? Are law-breakers allowed to vary their agreements as well as their victims?

The EBU regulation stipulates that the varying can be applied only after an opponent's irregularity. With no regulation in place, I have always assumed that you may have and vary agreements after your own irregularities.

[Trick13]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-05, 07:07, said:

...
In the Elections section of the ACBL edition of the laws is the following provision:

7. Law 40B3: 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.

...

In New Zealand:

Law 40B3 Prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during theauction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited.

[beowulf]

This does seem to be an area where the non-offending side is getting the old heave-ho. Or heads you lose, tails they win.

I think it's quite clear that Barmar is correct in his interpretation of the laws. But the law can be, and often is, as the saying goes, an ass. That would be a British ass, not an American one, BTW. Presumably, this law dates (like many of the laws) from the days when conventions, such as Lebensohl, were much less common.

Really, the only thing going for the opening side is that for many (intervening) pairs, just making the bid sufficient will be illegal because it is likely to carry a different meaning (not all pairs, obviously). But if I play that 2H is a natural overcall of 1NT and I start by undercalling 1H, the worst that can happen to me is that I have to bid 2H. It does seem a little unfair to the opponents (the opening side and non-offenders) that they are not allowed to capitalize on my error.

Having said all this, I'm firmly of the opinion that, after an irregularity (either by partner or by the opponents) direct bids should be natural since, by law, they cannot have any pre-arranged meaning. So, to go back to the original post, it seems to me that there is nothing illegal in the following scheme after 1NT (IB):

• (don't accept) then use your normal agreements (the IB essentially never happened)
  
• (do accept) then take the (legally mandated) opportunity to bid naturally, so e.g. if you want to play 2C, just bid 2C.

[blackshoe]

beowulf, on 2015-May-07, 20:00, said:

I'm firmly of the opinion that, after an irregularity (either by partner or by the opponents) direct bids should be natural since, by law, they cannot have any pre-arranged meaning.

Is that what the law says?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-07, 20:30, said:

Is that what the law says?

Whatever the law says, this is a possible interpretation of the ACBL election.

[TrialBid]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-05, 07:07, said:

7. Law 40B3: 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.

For this topic to even come up suggests to me that too many people have been playing online bridge for too long and have forgot what was considered general knowledge.

Point 1: You are not "varying" understandings because of an irregularity. You merely have agreements covering what to do in competitive situations which may be quite different from what you do uncontested. Moreover a sensible reading of the rules on insufficient bids makes it obvious that condoning an insufficient (or a bid out of turn) supersedes any irregularity as the instruction is that the auction proceeds without penalty (including any possible UI).

Point 2: Expert agreements have existed since long before I even played bridge covering some auctions. One I can cite from a book I own, Robert Ewen's Doubles. A double of an insufficient bid is unilaterally a penalty double. Period. It does not matter that if it were not insufficient it would have been negative. If the opponent has entered the auction unwisely, do not give him a chance to pass and bar his partner from an auction they shouldn't have entered!

[blackshoe]

What of this scenario:

1NT-(1♦*)-?. 1♦ is alerted, and the explanation is that if it were sufficient, it would show hearts. The opening side have the agreement that in the auction 1NT-(P)-2red, the response shows the next higher suit. What is 1NT-(1♦)-2♦ permitted to be? Must it show hearts? Really? What about 1NT-(1♦)-2♥? What about 1NT-1♦-1♥ or 1NT-1♦-1♠? In the last two, you can't be "varying" an agreement, because either you have no agreement, or you made one prior to the session, and you're going to bid according to that agreement.

If the lawmakers wanted us not to be allowed to make agreements regarding bids (or calls) which we would not have had available except for an irregularity, whyinhell didn't they just say that?

[barmar]

beowulf, on 2015-May-07, 20:00, said:

I think it's quite clear that Barmar is correct in his interpretation of the laws. But the law can be, and often is, as the saying goes, an ass. That would be a British ass, not an American one, BTW.

Ours are fatter, I suppose?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-07, 22:27, said:

What of this scenario:

1NT-(1♦*)-?. 1♦ is alerted, and the explanation is that if it were sufficient, it would show hearts. The opening side have the agreement that in the auction 1NT-(P)-2red, the response shows the next higher suit. What is 1NT-(1♦)-2♦ permitted to be? Must it show hearts? Really? What about 1NT-(1♦)-2♥? What about 1NT-1♦-1♥ or 1NT-1♦-1♠? In the last two, you can't be "varying" an agreement, because either you have no agreement, or you made one prior to the session, and you're going to bid according to that agreement.

If the lawmakers wanted us not to be allowed to make agreements regarding bids (or calls) which we would not have had available except for an irregularity, whyinhell didn't they just say that?

Your scenario doesn't work. The only way 1♦ would have been alerted when insufficient over 1NT in that manner would be if the alerting person assumed a finger-fumble --- and then he should have kept his trap shut and allowed the replacement procedure to take place before alerting. They cannot have an agreement to make an insufficient bid and use it as a convention.