[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-05, 08:09, said:

gordontd quoted a relevant regulation:
Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

I don't think this means that the standards for an opening bid can be changed, and the rule will apply at whatever level one is playing.

Yeah, I googled it and came across 40B3. FWIW I agree with Z that this is wrong, but allowing varied agreements would cause extra complication.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-April-05, 08:09, said:

gordontd quoted a relevant regulation:
Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

I don't think this means that the standards for an opening bid can be changed, and the rule will apply at whatever level one is playing. I think that an agreement to pass with a hand that will double 3NT will fall foul of:

"It is not permitted to play an opening pass to show values."

That really is nonsense.

I don't see this. Please tell me where I go wrong.

Partner agreeing that a strategy I might employ is a good idea is not a systemic agreement per definition.

The opening pass in this case does not necessarily show values, which would indeed be illegal, unless it prompts partner to "respond" with a bid should the NT BOOTer decide to pass instead.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-April-05, 08:09, said:

I think that an agreement to pass with a hand that will double 3NT will fall foul of:

"It is not permitted to play an opening pass to show values."

That really is nonsense.

But if you also pass weak, flat hands, the pass doesn't "show values". You might have values, or you might have a hand with nothing sensible to bid.

That rule is aimed squarely at forcing pass systems.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-April-05, 10:06, said:

But if you also pass weak, flat hands, the pass doesn't "show values". You might have values, or you might have a hand with nothing sensible to bid.

That rule is aimed squarely at forcing pass systems.

I was referring to a defence to a 1NT out of turn where Pass by second hand showed something like 8+ any shape so that partner can double 3NT with 8 or 9 points. For weak balanced hands, you need a 1C or 1D fert (also illegal in most events). Weak hands with a five-card suit would bid 1 of the suit (or 2 of the fert suit). That defence to the 1NT out of turn is illegal, regardless of the intent of the rule. And I don't buy aguahombre's notion that this is not a systemic agreement. The restriction is on the opening bid in certain situations.

And I think you should be allowed ANY defence to a bid out of turn. You are allowed any defence to a strong club, so why should this be different?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-03, 09:22, said:

No it doesn't. It doesn't require a player to do or think anything. All it does is states one of the objects of the game.

If it was in the glossary, then I would agree with you; but it has been put in a Law. Are you saying the player has no obligation to play to win in either the hand or the event?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-05, 13:38, said:

If it was in the glossary, then I would agree with you; but it has been put in a Law. Are you saying the player has no obligation to play to win in either the hand or the event?

Well, it doesn't use any of the magic words "should", "shall", "must", etc. I think it is probably in a similar category to "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized".

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-05, 15:30, said:

Well, it doesn't use any of the magic words "should", "shall", "must", etc. I think it is probably in a similar category to "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized".

I would agree with that.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2013-March-29, 11:45, said:

The above board caused a kerfuffle at a nearby club. North opened a 15-17 NT out of turn, and South bellowed, "Pay attention, partner, I'm dealer". The director was called and he initially ruled that if South and West passed, the auction would continue. West was not happy with that and made the TD get the Law Book. Finally the TD ruled that, if East did not accept the bid - which he did not, South had to pass throughout. North took a shot at 3NT, and was pleased to see that 4S would have failed. East, our friend who looks like the SB, was not happy. He said that North had UI from his partner's protestation, as South would not have been as annoyed if he had held a balanced 4-count, and the 3NT bid used this UI. He was aware that the fact 4S failed was rub of the green, but he argued that Pass was an LA on the North hand. North quoted 10C4:

4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).

He pointed out that this made no mention of Law 73, although it did mention three other laws, so he argued that any bid was permitted by North. He also pointed out that Law 16D2 only made information from withdrawn calls and plays UI, and the remark was neither. East argued that even though there was a specific law which covered the rectification, Law 73 always applied. How do you rule? And, yes this incident is broadly true, believe it or not.

While the judgement on the hand does not interest me, ie whether UI was used, the question that interests me is that North seems to think that Law 73C does not apply. Sorry, North, Law 73C applies unless some other Law says otherwise: this is a UI position.

ggwhiz, on 2013-March-29, 17:13, said:

East should be shot. He rightfully painted them into a corner by not accepting the 1nt bid forcing them to guess and then waits for the final result to protest that they guessed right. Is this not a triple shot?

First of all, what's illegal about a triple shot?

Second, not accepting a bid and then asking for a ruling at the end of a hand when UI seems to have been used is completely normal and ethical behaviour. It is offenders who need punishing, not non-offenders.

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 05:31, said:

I think one can play for enjoyment as well, but the chief objective under 72A is to do better than the opponent. Surely this forum must assume that aim.

Certainly not. Assuming everyone thinks in one particular way leads to woodenness and poor TD attitudes.

PhilKing, on 2013-April-05, 08:03, said:

I'm not up with the modern EBU rules, but when I was a junior I know we were not allowed a defence to insufficient bids. I know not whether this is analagous or still in force.

No longer true.