[Vampyr]

So would accepting/not accepting based on one's holding in a particular suit also be legal?

[jeffford76]

I sent this question to both rulings@acbl.org and to another top ACBL director:

"Is it legal to have the agreement with your partner that if you accept an insufficient bid and double it that you are making a penalty double?"

The response from rulings was, "It is illegal to have agreements over irregularities - deemed to be consulting with partner (10C). Further, your agreements may only be based on legal calls (40A2). This, just for starters."

The response from the other director was, "40B3 and BoD Election #7 on page 137 mean you can't do it. I hope the rulings mailbox gives you the same answer."

I have to admit this wasn't an interpretation of 10C I would have ever come up with, and I'm not sure why 40A2 applies either since 27A1 makes the call part of the legal auction. But regardless of the legal basis there is agreement that it isn't allowed.

[pran]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-11, 13:16, said:

I sent this question to both rulings@acbl.org and to another top ACBL director:

"Is it legal to have the agreement with your partner that if you accept an insufficient bid and double it that you are making a penalty double?"

The response from rulings was, "It is illegal to have agreements over irregularities - deemed to be consulting with partner (10C). Further, your agreements may only be based on legal calls (40A2). This, just for starters."

The response from the other director was, "40B3 and BoD Election #7 on page 137 mean you can't do it. I hope the rulings mailbox gives you the same answer."

I have to admit this wasn't an interpretation of 10C I would have ever come up with, and I'm not sure why 40A2 applies either since 27A1 makes the call part of the legal auction. But regardless of the legal basis there is agreement that it isn't allowed.

I don't understand how anybody can bring in Law 10C here, your question does not indicate any communication with partner before selecting an option among those available after an irregularity committed by an opponent.

Law 40B3 does not itself prohibit such agreements as indicated, but it empowers the regulating authority to issue regulations with such effect. And I understand that ACBL shall have done just that?

Law 40 received a major revision in 2007 and I think some experience is needed in order to find possible undesired effects of this revision.

[jeffford76]

pran, on 2012-October-11, 15:46, said:

I don't understand how anybody can bring in Law 10C here, your question does not indicate any communication with partner before selecting an option among those available after an irregularity committed by an opponent.

I believe the implication is that the communication is prohibited even if it happened outside the game and at a different point in time.

Quote

Law 40B3 does not itself prohibit such agreements as indicated, but it empowers the regulating authority to issue regulations with such effect. And I understand that ACBL shall have done just that?

The ACBL has made this election:

Quote

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.

What it means to "vary [an] understanding" with regards to an insufficient bid is somewhat the point of the thread. It appears that the ACBL position is that what they really mean is "have an understanding".

As has been mentioned before, answers from rulings@ aren't official. I don't know a way to get an official ruling in the ACBL.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-11, 16:51, said:

I believe the implication is that the communication is prohibited even if it happened outside the game and at a different point in time.

I think they're grasping at straws to justify the regulation.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-October-11, 19:50, said:

I think they're grasping at straws to justify the regulation.

However, as the only place in Law 10C concerning communication between players

Law 10C2 said:

If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

This isn't even a straw to be grasped at.

[pran]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-11, 16:51, said:

[...]
What it means to "vary [an] understanding" with regards to an insufficient bid is somewhat the point of the thread. It appears that the ACBL position is that what they really mean is "have an understanding".
[...]

That much is also my impression.

Now, in case (God forbid) I ever am to play bridge under ACBL rules and encounter the following situation:

My partner opens with say 3♥ and my RHO bids 1♠. May I now accept this insufficient bid and legally bid (for instance) 2♥? If an explanation is then requested by opponents shall "general bridge knowledge" be accepted as legal explanation?

[blackshoe]

I don't see why that wouldn't be legal, although other than here or on blml, I've never heard anyone cite "general bridge knowledge" or the presumably equivalent "it's just bridge" when explaining. Also, I have trouble thinking of a hand which would want to do that, but I suppose that's not really relevant.

[jeffford76]

pran, on 2012-October-12, 04:59, said:

Now, in case (God forbid) I ever am to play bridge under ACBL rules and encounter the following situation:

My partner opens with say 3♥ and my RHO bids 1♠. May I now accept this insufficient bid and legally bid (for instance) 2♥? If an explanation is then requested by opponents shall "general bridge knowledge" be accepted as legal explanation?

I believe the correct answer is "Yes, as long as you've never discussed the situation with your partner." If you have discussed it, then you're not allowed to accept and bid 2♥.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-12, 07:18, said:

I don't see why that wouldn't be legal, although other than here or on blml, I've never heard anyone cite "general bridge knowledge" or the presumably equivalent "it's just bridge" when explaining. Also, I have trouble thinking of a hand which would want to do that, but I suppose that's not really relevant.

Does ACBL accept as legal the apparently existing partnership understanding of a 2♥ bid after an accepted insufficient bid of 1♠ here?

(And if you want a more relevant example take the auctions:
1♠ - 1♣ - third hand now accepts this IB and bids 1♥ or 1♠ which apparently must show some values in the named suit, but not sufficient strength for the two-level.)

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-October-12, 10:58, said:

(And if you want a more relevant example take the auctions:
1♠ - 1♣ - third hand now accepts this IB and bids 1♥ or 1♠ which apparently must show some values in the named suit, but not sufficient strength for the two-level.)

That understanding comes from ordinary bridge logic, not usually from anything partnership-specific.

The test for this is whether you would interpret the action differently depending on whether it was done by your regular partner or a random pickup with similar bridge expertise.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-October-12, 10:58, said:

Does ACBL accept as legal the apparently existing partnership understanding of a 2♥ bid after an accepted insufficient bid of 1♠ here?

It sounds like you're taking the existence of a bid as conclusive, or nearly conclusive, evidence that there is a pre-existing agreement as to the meaning of the bid. That is demonstrably not the case.

[pran]

pran, on 2012-October-12, 10:58, said:

Does ACBL accept as legal the apparently existing partnership understanding of a 2♥ bid after an accepted insufficient bid of 1♠ here?

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

It sounds like you're taking the existence of a bid as conclusive, or nearly conclusive, evidence that there is a pre-existing agreement as to the meaning of the bid. That is demonstrably not the case.

I am deliberately using the term partnership understanding and not the term agreement. So does the laws.

And when I have reason to expect that my partner will understand my call as intended even without any previouos discussion then we have a partnership understanding.

Law 40A1{a} said:

Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players.

(my enhancement)

[pran]

pran, on 2012-October-12, 10:58, said:

(And if you want a more relevant example take the auctions:
1♠ - 1♣ - third hand now accepts this IB and bids 1♥ or 1♠ which apparently must show some values in the named suit, but not sufficient strength for the two-level.)

barmar, on 2012-October-12, 11:20, said:

That understanding comes from ordinary bridge logic, not usually from anything partnership-specific.

The test for this is whether you would interpret the action differently depending on whether it was done by your regular partner or a random pickup with similar bridge expertise.

Sure, but we still have a partnership understanding. See Law 40A1{a}

[blackshoe]

Whether we're talking about understandings or agreements doesn't change my point.

Quote

And when I have reason to expect that my partner will understand my call as intended even without any previouos discussion then we have a partnership understanding.

That depends on the reason, does it not? If the reason is mutual experience or awareness (exempt 'matters generally available to bridge players' — see Law 40B26{a}) then yes. If you have some other reason to expect he will understand you, then perhaps no.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-12, 18:34, said:

That depends on the reason, does it not? If the reason is mutual experience or awareness (exempt 'matters generally available to bridge players' — see Law 40B26{a}) then yes. If you have some other reason to expect he will understand you, then perhaps no.

So this regulation cannot be obeyed by regular partners who have seen insufficient bids before (or happened to discuss them once down the pub). Therefore these players are effectively barred from accepting the insufficient bid. Yet they are explicitly permitted to do so (L27A1).

Is the option in 40B3 something the ACBL insisted on, despite the fact that it contradicts other laws (similar the the effective removal of the option in 61B3)?

[aguahombre]

I wouldn't mind seeing prohibition of accepting an insufficient bid in order to make a bid which itself would have been insufficient if the offender had passed. Those situations are not "variances", since there shouldn't be any meaning/understanding/agreement to begin with.

Just my lay opinion on what seems right in any jurisdiction, having no idea whether I can decipher the above law interpretations and determine whether such bids are legal.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-12, 19:13, said:

I wouldn't mind seeing prohibition of accepting an insufficient bid in order to make a bid which itself would have been insufficient if the offender had passed. Those situations are not "variances", since there shouldn't be any meaning/understanding/agreement to begin with.

The point is that outside the ACBL, there can be agreements. So it is silly not to take advantage of the extra room.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-12, 19:30, said:

The point is that outside the ACBL, there can be agreements. So it is silly not to take advantage of the extra room.

Yes, it is silly not to take advantage of things which are available. I didn't say I wouldn't take advantage if I could find a clever use for a bid which would have been insufficient in an uncontested auction but a loophole allows it in this case.

My point was that allowing such bids is a gaping hole in the Laws, in my opinion; and I wouldn't feel even mildly inconvenienced if they plugged it. It is not the same as rightfully accepting an insufficient bid in order to be able to squeeze in a bid which falls between partner's bid and the sufficient correction righty is likely to make.

This is the "changing laws..." Forum, and that would be one of my recommendations to any authority which currently allows such action.

Also, notice my use of "bid", not "call".
IMO: (P) 3H (1S) DBL should be allowed as a GBK negative double, even though I couldn't have doubled my own partner's 1H bid if righty had passed

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-October-12, 20:49

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-12, 20:32, said:

Yes, it is silly not to take advantage of things which are available. I didn't say I wouldn't take advantage if I could find a clever use for a bid which would have been insufficient in an uncontested auction but a loophole allows it in this case.

My point was that allowing such bids is a gaping hole in the Laws, in my opinion; and I wouldn't feel even mildly inconvenienced if they plugged it.

There is a reason that disallowing the acceptance of insufficient bids, bids and leads out of turn, etc, which is that it is unfair to put the onus of not accepting them on the NOS. The latter might not notice and might dozily follow. So now the NOS are offenders too, and probably cannot be sorted out sensibly.

Quote

It is not the same as accepting an insufficient bid in order to be able to squeeze in a bid that falls in between partner's bid and the sufficient correction righty is likely to make.

What two things are you comparing?

Quote

This is the "changing laws..." Forum, and that would be one of my recommendations to any authority which currently allows such action.

As I said above, you can't make it illegal to accept insufficient bids and for the auction to then continue normally. At least I am guessing that this is the "that" which is your recommendation, though I am not quite sure.