[nige1]

IMO, laws about illegal calls (eg insufficient bids and calls out of turn) are too sophisticated for ordinary players, most directors, and even some law-makers to understand; and they are easy prey for secretary birds. Extreme difficulties arise when the law allows choices for either the law-breaker or the victim.

For example, the victim may accept or reject an insufficient bid or bid out of turn. Some jurisdictions allow you to have different agreements contingent on that choice. But there remain problems even in jurisdictions where such agreements are banned. Two of the simplest examples featuring illegals calls by an opponent:

• (4♥ out of turn by opponent) _X
  
• 4♠ (4♥ insufficient bid by opponent) _X

Please assume that ...

• Systemically, your double of a legal 4♥ opening or overcall would have been take-out.
  
• Partner elects to double after the director has explained his options to him.

Common sense dictates to some (but certainly not all) players that doubles here are penalty no matter what the meaning in a legal auction would be.

Anyway. when it happens, the partnership are likely to discuss it and penalty is quite likely to be the future agreement reached.

But is that agreement legal? This is the law at its most basic but I don't think there is consensus on the answer to this question among legal experts.

I expect it would be far worse in jurisdictions that adopt the default law, that explicitly allows you to modify agreements over infractions. Ordinary players are unlikely to delve into this Pandora's box. Cunning experts, however, can agree, for example, that the rejection of some high-level insufficient bids promises a singleton or void in opponent's suit. Apparently, by default, the law allows analogous options to the offenders!

IMO a simple solution is to remove all these options for both sides. For example

• Cancel the illegal call. (Substitute pass for an insufficient bid).
  
• The illegal call is UI to the offender's partner but AI to the non-offenders.
  
• It is illegal for a non-offender to accept the illegal call. A call that appears to condone the illegal call is another infraction.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Sep 29 2009, 06:34 PM, said:

I expect it would be far worse in jurisdictions that adopt the default law, that explicitly allows you to modify agreements over infractions. Ordinary players are unlikely to delve into this Pandora's box. Cunning experts, however, can agree, for example,  that the rejection of some high-level insufficient bids promises a singleton or void in opponent's suit.

The problem with not allowing agreements is that the first time an insufficient bid is encountered, players will have a de facto agreement:

1♠ (1♥) 1♠ Hmm... so what has partner got? Apparently he has got a very weak spade raise.

Now the next time this happens the pair will have an agreement through no fault of their own.

Quote

Apparently, by default, the law allows analogous options to the offenders!

This is what the law says, but I think that it is just a mistake. The EBU have clarified it for us anyway, by allowing agreements to the non-offenders only.

Quote

IMO a simple solution is to remove all these options for both sides. For example

• Cancel the illegal call. (Substitute pass for an insufficient bid).
  
  
• The illegal call is UI to the offender's partner but AI to the non-offenders.
  
  
• It is illegal for a non-offender to accept the illegal call. A call that appears to condone the illegal call is another infraction.

Substituting pass for insufficient bids will definitely concentrate people's minds, but it is pretty harsh, and the lawmakers are definitely moving (albeit too far) in the opposite direction.

The UI/AI issue above is clearly correct.

It would not be fair to make condoning illegal calls an infraction. A player may see a bid to his right and make a call; a player may not notice an insufficient bid (especially if he is passing.) These things happen. I do not think that players should be required to be so vigilant that they notice all of their opponents' infractions. Most people do notice them, but requiring it would make the game very stressful. Also it is pretty clear that cheaters could find clever legal methods to take advantage of a law like this.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on Sep 30 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

The problem with not allowing agreements is that the first time an insufficient bid is encountered, players will have a de facto agreement:

Unless it's a "special" agreement, i.e. not just ordinary bridge logic, there's no problem with that.

More generally, someone (maybe it was you) made a similar claim in another thread, and I disagreed that doing something once establishes a de facto agrement. Just because you bid this way one time doesn't mean that you'll bid the same way when a similar situation arises in the future. Implicit agreements come from a pattern of similar behavior, not one-off actions.

[bluejak]

It is considered an important principle of ruling in England that we do not consider that one occasion creates an agreement. At one time there were definitely areas of the ACBL that worked on that principle, and not only do we consider it wrong but it becomes unworkable.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Oct 1 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

It is considered an important principle of ruling in England that we do not consider that one occasion creates an agreement.  At one time there were definitely areas of the ACBL that worked on that principle, and not only do we consider it wrong but it becomes unworkable.

OK, one occasion was just a detail. Make it 100 times if that is better. At some point a partnership's actions after insufficient bids will become an agreement.

This is not their fault; after an insufficient bid on their right it is their turn and they must do something. That something will be based on common sense, but after 99 times of "doing something sensible and letting partner work it out" I think that an agreement is established.

[bluejak]

No doubt you are right, but does it happen? If I count the number of times my RHO has made an insufficient bid, I do not think it has occurred 99 times with the same partner - that is any partner in my whole bridge-playing career.

Suppose you open 1♠, LHO bids 1♥, and your partner - let's call him Paul, for argument's sake - bids 1♠. Now, how often has this sequence, with a raise to the one-level over an insufficient bid, occurred with you and Paul throughout all the time you have played with him? If the answer is as high as three times I shall be thoroughly surprised.

While the theory of agreements over insufficient bids may be correct, I doubt there is the least problem in practice. Most insufficient bids get corrected and normal bidding continues. Insufficient bids, especially accepted ones, are rare enough that understandings with partner very rarely develop.

And, of course, you play in a jurisdiction where any such agreements are perfectly legal anyway.

[mycroft]

Well, in my case, it's happened 5 times (4 my side of the table with one of two partners, one as TD) and every time that's what it's been. And I *am* in the ACBL. Unfortunately, I am pretty certain that means that if 1S-1H happens at my table again, I am in violation of ACBL regulations just by sitting there, assuming my partner is awake.

I am also pretty certain that anyone trying to pull the "no agreements after IB" game on me with that experience will be laughed out of town.

[awm]

It may be worth mentioning that sometimes an insufficient bid goes unnoticed. In this case several more calls may be made. The current laws allow this -- by making his call rather than calling attention to the insufficient bid, the next player in rotation has accepted the insufficient bid and the auction continues.

A change in laws to disallow accepting of insufficient bids means that in this case we have a huge problem. Lots of UI has been handed out (I suppose all the subsequent calls are UI, and we have to roll the auction back to the insufficient bid).

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 2 2009, 07:18 AM, said:

No doubt you are right, but does it happen?  If I count the number of times my RHO has made an insufficient bid, I do not think it has occurred 99 times with the same partner - that is any partner in my whole bridge-playing career.

Suppose you open 1♠, LHO bids 1♥, and your partner - let's call him Paul, for argument's sake - bids 1♠.  Now, how often has this sequence, with a raise to the one-level over an insufficient bid, occurred with you and Paul throughout all the time you have played with him?  If the answer is as high as three times I shall be thoroughly surprised.

While the theory of agreements over insufficient bids may be correct, I doubt there is the least problem in practice.  Most insufficient bids get corrected and normal bidding continues.  Insufficient bids, especially accepted ones, are rare enough that understandings with partner very rarely develop.

And, of course, you play in a jurisdiction where any such agreements are perfectly legal anyway.

I agree with you and would go even farther. I can't even recall there being 3 insufficient bids accepted altogether in all the bridge I have ever played, by both sides combined, with all the partners I have ever had. Maybe there have been 3 or 4 or 5 but I couldn't even recall a particular single instance. It's all an interesting theory discussion I suppose, but it has no real practical application.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Oct 2 2009, 07:18 AM, said:

No doubt you are right, but does it happen?  If I count the number of times my RHO has made an insufficient bid, I do not think it has occurred 99 times with the same partner - that is any partner in my whole bridge-playing career.

Suppose you open 1♠, LHO bids 1♥, and your partner - let's call him Paul, for argument's sake - bids 1♠.  Now, how often has this sequence, with a raise to the one-level over an insufficient bid, occurred with you and Paul throughout all the time you have played with him?  If the answer is as high as three times I shall be thoroughly surprised.

While the theory of agreements over insufficient bids may be correct, I doubt there is the least problem in practice.  Most insufficient bids get corrected and normal bidding continues.  Insufficient bids, especially accepted ones, are rare enough that understandings with partner very rarely develop.

And, of course, you play in a jurisdiction where any such agreements are perfectly legal anyway.

The example is in a jurisdiction where such agreements are illegal. Over the course of a Bridge lifetime, some partnerships may never experience an insufficient bid or bid out of turn but others will encounter several and develop implicit agreements that give them an advantage. Partnerships deem it profitable to develop specific methods to cope with other quite rare occurrences, eg 4441 hands with 20+HCP.

Even in jurisdictions, where such agreements are legal, not many players are aware of these opportunities, and few seem to take advantage. I wouldn't even know where to declare them on my system card Unless opponents know how you vary your agreements, how can they counter them?

If these illegal calls are so rare, why devise especially complex laws to deal with them? and organise seminars in exotic locations, to try to explain them to directors? Oh .. maybe I've just answered my own question

[nige1]

awm, on Oct 2 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

It may be worth mentioning that sometimes an insufficient bid goes unnoticed. In this case several more calls may be made. The current laws allow this -- by making his call rather than calling attention to the insufficient bid, the next player in rotation has accepted the insufficient bid and the auction continues.
A change in laws to disallow accepting of insufficient bids means that in this case we have a huge problem. Lots of UI has been handed out (I suppose all the subsequent calls are UI, and we have to roll the auction back to the insufficient bid).

Under the proposal -- yes -- but many of the other problems with illegal bids would disappear. The significant advantage is that the rules would be simpler and much better understood by players, directors and law-makers.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on Oct 2 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

Unfortunately, I am pretty certain that means that if 1S-1H happens at my table again, I am in violation of ACBL regulations just by sitting there, assuming my partner is awake.

Well put. This is what I was trying to say. Unsucessfully.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Oct 2 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Even in jurisdictions, where such agreements are legal, not many players are aware of these opportunities, and few seem to take advantage.

Are you suggesting that everyone should suffer with them? There are lots of areas where partnerships willing to put the work into their system have advantages.

Quote

I would not even know where to declare them on my system card Unless opponents know how you vary your agreements, how can they counter them?

Oh, I don't know, let's see... perhaps by obeying the most basic rules of the game? Remember that even though you can devise agreements to use over their irregularities, they may not agree defenses to them.

[nige1]

nige1, on Oct 2 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Even in jurisdictions, where such agreements are legal, not many players are aware of these opportunities, and few seem to take advantage.

Vampyr, on Oct 2 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that everyone should suffer with them? There are lots of areas where partnerships willing to put the work into their system have advantages.

nige1, on Oct 2 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

I would not even know where to declare them on my system card Unless opponents know how you vary your agreements, how can they counter them?

Vampyr, on Oct 2 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

Oh, I don't know, let's see... perhaps by obeying the most basic rules of the game? Remember that even though you can devise agreements to use over their irregularities, they may not agree defenses to them.

TFLB, on 2007, 40B3, 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.

Hence...

• It seems that either side may vary their agreements, unless the the local legislature forbids it.
  
• Few players are aware of this law or what the local rules are.
  
• Do pairs know and follow the "basic rule" about how such variant agreements should be declared on their system cards?

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Oct 3 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

[*]It seems that either side may vary their agreements, unless the the local legislature forbids it.

Well it is forbidden in the EBU, and I would imagine that it is the same everywhere else; I think that there is simply a mistake in the Law here, and it was not the intention that the OS may have agreements.

Quote

[*]Few players are aware of this law or what the local rules are.

So what? The Laws are freely available. I am sure that there are players that are not aware, for example, that the most recent OB permits any and all defenses to opening 1NT bids and strong ♣s. People who care enough will take the trouble to find out. If the problem as you see it is dissemination of the Laws and local regulations, there is no reason why this one item should be singled out.

Quote

[*]Do pairs know and follow the "basic rule" about how such variant agreements should be declared on their system cards?

Probably not; I certainly don't know this rule. But in a sense it doesn't matter; as the OS are not allowed to come up with defenses (presumably, as above, this applies everywhere), they don't need to be prepared.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Oct 3 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

nige1, on Oct 3 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

[*]It seems that either side may vary their agreements, unless the the local legislature forbids it.

Well it is forbidden in the EBU, and I would imagine that it is the same everywhere else; I think that there is simply a mistake in the Law here, and it was not the intention that the OS may have agreements.

Erk?

Orange book 7D1 said:

(j) 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 27B1B.

I thought we were talking about varying our agreements over irregularities, which certainly is legal.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 3 2009, 08:27 AM, said:

Orange book 7D1 said:

(j) 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 27B1B.

I thought we were talking about varying our agreements over irregularities, which certainly is legal.

Are you claiming that the clever partnership agreement I read about recently:

If we ever have to replace an insufficient bid under Law 27B then a double or redouble (as the case may be) has the same meaning as the insufficient bid so that Law 27B1( B ) is satisfied for the auction to continue without restrictions on offender's partner.

is legal? (I hope not!)

Sven

[bluejak]

Perhaps you should take the trouble to read the regulation that you quoted.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Oct 2 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Well, in my case, it's happened 5 times (4 my side of the table with one of two partners, one as TD) and every time that's what it's been. And I *am* in the ACBL. Unfortunately, I am pretty certain that means that if 1S-1H happens at my table again, I am in violation of ACBL regulations just by sitting there, assuming my partner is awake.

I am also pretty certain that anyone trying to pull the "no agreements after IB" game on me with that experience will be laughed out of town.

The simple fact is that this meaning of 1S-(1H)-1S is NOT a special partnership agreement. It's simple bridge logic, available to all players at the table, and no special disclosure is needed. Disclosure rules are aimed at giving opponents information about your partnership agreements and tendencies that they wouldn't be expected to know a priori.

The rule against "agreements after an irregularity" is targeted at changing your conventions to specifically take advantage of the irregularity.

As another example, if an irregularity bars partner, it's common to blast to 3NT and pray. All good players know this, it's not a convention, it's not a special agreement that needs to be disclosed. Nor do the opponents have to disclose that they might pass with decent hands in this situation, to put you to the guess. This is all just ordinary, tactical bidding.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 3 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

Perhaps you should take the trouble to read the regulation that you quoted.

Quote: I thought we were talking about varying our agreements over irregularities, which certainly is legal.