[bluejak]

barmar, on Oct 4 2009, 04:56 AM, said:

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.

But suppose you have specific agreements? You may say it is just bridge, but I could agree with partner that a raise to the one level shows specifically 3 card support [not longer] and 2-4 HCP. The general approach that a raise to the 1-level has an obvious meaning is one thing, but a specific agreement is another. Now, as I see it, that agreement over a raise to the 1-level is legal in the EBU but not in the ACBL.

Of course we know that agreements with partner barred are not much use, but even so there still could be issues in defensive play. I do not know, but suppose that if partner opens, the opponents bid, I do something silly and correct it to 3NT, they bid something and I double it. Now, in defence, partner might be able to rely on an agreement that I will always have a double stopper in the opponent's suit to bid 3NT: again, such an agreement seems legal in the EBU but not the ACBL.

Like so many things, if a TD is asked to rule, he would have to decide whether ti is general bridge knowledge or a specific understanding, but such understandings seem illegal in the ACBL [and other places] so he would have to do something if he decides such an understanding has been used [or the opponents not informed correctly about such an understanding].