[lalldonn]

Some conversation recently about not being allowed to have agreements over insufficient bids (I know that is neither a direct nor precise quote) got me thinking, what is the purpose of that law? Why shouldn't partnerships who did nothing wrong be allowed to have agreements if their opponents make an insufficient bid, and take maximum advantage?

Can anyone explain to me why this law exists? I think it should probably just be eliminated.

[RMB1]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-28, 10:38, said:

Can anyone explain to me why this law exists? I think it should probably just be eliminated.

It is not a law but a regulation. The law allows regulators to make such a regulation. Law 40B3

Quote

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.

I agree it is silly* to prevent a non-offending side from developing understanding about whether and how it will bid when accepting/not accepting an insufficient bid (or other irregularity).

* if you prefer: unwise / misguided / against the spirit of the game / impossible to implement

[TimG]

Let's suppose the opponents make an insufficient bid, we opt not to accept the bid, and the opponent makes the bid sufficient. Can our double of that bid mean something different than it would have had there been no insufficient bid and correction? If so, should it be allowed?

For instance, suppose the auction starts 1N-(1H)-? We play negative doubles of 2-level overcalls, but want to make a penalty double of 2H in this case. So, we do not accept the double and if it is corrected to 2H, now we double for penalties. If the opponent chooses to pass instead of making the bid sufficient, we have lost nothing and we can go on our way in a non-competitive auction (with the extra information that one opponents wanted to bid 1H).

Should we be allowed to vary our agreements based upon an insufficient bid being made sufficient?

Or, how about this? 1N-(1H)-DBL vs 1N-(1H)-"Director, please", then when the director arrives and gives the first option of accepting the insufficient bid, accepting it and doubling.

In my opinion, we ought to be able to have agreements over insufficient bids and corrected insufficient bids. But, we ought not be able to vary our agreement based upon whether we choose to accept or whether we do so with a director call, that sort of thing.

[nigel_k]

Does this include implicit agreements: practices developed through play together as a partnership and observing partner's tendencies, but not explicitly discussed? If this is included, how precisely do they propose to disallow it? A brain transplant is surely too drastic and even just banning the pair from ever playing together seems a bit much.

[kenrexford]

1S-P-1H has no meaning, so how can you possibly bid 1H after an insufficient 1D without having some agreement? The ACBL is impossible to comply with, except by never accepting and insufficient bid.

[gordontd]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-28, 22:55, said:

1S-P-1H has no meaning, so how can you possibly bid 1H after an insufficient 1D without having some agreement?

You take the 1H card out of the bidding box and put it on the table. There - you've done it, and it didn't take an agreement to do.

[gnasher]

It seems to me that it's unfair to criticise the regulation itself. The way the regulation is applied may be another matter, of course.

The ACBL has is a general regulation that you can't vary your methods because of an irregularity. This has generally benign consequences, for example:
- We've agreed spades, but we know that we can require or forbid a club lead. We can't have agreed that a 4♣ cue-bid becomes a keycard-ask.
- One opponent is barred from bidding. We can't have agreed that our preemptive raises become constructive.
- LHO makes an insufficient 2♣ overcall and replaces it with 3♣. We can't have agreed that a takeout double becomes a penalty double.
- Declarer leads from the wrong hand whilst cashing a suit. We can't have agreed that if we accept the lead we give attitude, but if we don't we give suit-preference.

There are many categories of irregularity. In two particular situations - accepting an insufficient bid and accepting a bid out of turn - the auction is different from all others, so there are no methods to vary. Hence the regulation has no relevant consequences.

[kenrexford]

gordontd, on 2012-September-29, 02:13, said:

You take the 1H card out of the bidding box and put it on the table. There - you've done it, and it didn't take an agreement to do.

Yes, but then the director should punish you for having an agreement that is specific to an insufficient bid or for not.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-29, 06:04, said:

Yes, but then the director should punish you for having an agreement that is specific to an insufficient bid or for not.

What? "The TD should punish you for bidding 1♥" regardless whether you have an agreement as to its meaning? I don't think so.

To me, 1♥ in this situation says "I have hearts, I probably don't have spades, and I have no reason to take up extra bidding space". IMO, that's "knowledge generally available to bridge players" and neither requires nor implies a prior agreement.

[bluejak]

TimG, on 2012-September-28, 11:26, said:

Let's suppose the opponents make an insufficient bid, we opt not to accept the bid, and the opponent makes the bid sufficient. Can our double of that bid mean something different than it would have had there been no insufficient bid and correction? If so, should it be allowed?

Certainly, why ever not?

TimG, on 2012-September-28, 11:26, said:

For instance, suppose the auction starts 1N-(1H)-? We play negative doubles of 2-level overcalls, but want to make a penalty double of 2H in this case. So, we do not accept the double and if it is corrected to 2H, now we double for penalties. If the opponent chooses to pass instead of making the bid sufficient, we have lost nothing and we can go on our way in a non-competitive auction (with the extra information that one opponents wanted to bid 1H).

Should we be allowed to vary our agreements based upon an insufficient bid being made sufficient?

Certainly, why ever not?

TimG, on 2012-September-28, 11:26, said:

Or, how about this? 1N-(1H)-DBL vs 1N-(1H)-"Director, please", then when the director arrives and gives the first option of accepting the insufficient bid, accepting it and doubling.

In my opinion, we ought to be able to have agreements over insufficient bids and corrected insufficient bids. But, we ought not be able to vary our agreement based upon whether we choose to accept or whether we do so with a director call, that sort of thing.

I agree with one of these but disagree with the other. Agreements based on whether a TD is called should clearly be illegal, since that involves illegal communication between partners.

But again, it is difficult to see what is wrong with agreements dependent on whether an IB is accepted. If an opponent bids 1♥ over our 1♠ it seems very reasonable to have a double of 1♥ as penalties, and a double of 2♥ - if he corrects to that, which is normal - as takeout [or the other way round]. Again, why ever not?

I have this worry that the idea of punishing the non-offenders is creeping into bridge, and I do not understand why. If opponents do not want you to have extra agreements it is simple: they do not make illegal bids.

[wyman]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-29, 07:58, said:

To me, 1♥ in this situation says "I have hearts, I probably don't have spades, and I have no reason to take up extra bidding space". IMO, that's "knowledge generally available to bridge players" and neither requires nor implies a prior agreement.

Is it forcing?

[blackshoe]

wyman, on 2012-September-30, 19:03, said:

Is it forcing?

Probably.

[CarlRitner]

I always thought the intent of this regulation was to prevent the offending side from having an agreement based on a deliberate insufficient bid. The non-offending side can certainly have an agreement as to how to handle insufficient bids, including when to accept or not, and what subsequent calls mean. Knowledge gained by the NOS is AI and can be used however they wish, correct?

[nige1]

Problems arise because the law gives both sides options over insufficient bids. It is inevitable that Secretary Birds exploit such legal loop-holes. Few ordinary players are aware of the intriguing possibilities.

A temporary fix would be a mandatory second convention-card disclosing methods after various kinds of infraction by either side. Books and articles would also increase awareness.

The long term fix (2027? 2037?) is to get rid of player options over infractions..

[aguahombre]

Or, maybe don't fix it. The only "loophole" I see, and would fix, is that which allows the partner of the IB'r to acknowledge that his partner might have less strength than the corrected IB would normally show, and then act on that information.

[gnasher]

CarlRitner, on 2012-September-30, 19:15, said:

I always thought the intent of this regulation was to prevent the offending side from having an agreement based on a deliberate insufficient bid.

If that were the sole intention, the regulation would read "A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following its own insufficient bid."

But it doesn't. It reads "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." A rule of general applicability was probably written with a general objective. In this case the objective was probably to produce something close to a bridge result, by restoring the equity that existed before the irregularity without giving anyone an undeserved bonus.

[gnasher]

TimG said:

Let's suppose the opponents make an insufficient bid, we opt not to accept the bid, and the opponent makes the bid sufficient. Can our double of that bid mean something different than it would have had there been no insufficient bid and correction? If so, should it be allowed?

bluejak, on 2012-September-30, 18:57, said:

Certainly, why ever not?

If that's an answer to the question of whether you're allowed to have such an agreement, it's not allowed in the ACBL, though it is allowed in England.

If you're answering the question "should it be allowed?", this is why not: When dealing with an accidental infraction, we should aim to restore equity, that is to return both sides to the position they were in before the infraction occurred. That objective is stated in the Laws, and I think most players would support it (though they might well argue about the practicalities).

If, before the infraction, the auction was going to be

1♥ (2♦) dbl [takeout]

allowing the non-offenders to choose between

1♥ (1♦) dbl [takeout]

and

1♥ (2♦) dbl [penalties]

doesn't restore equity - it gves an unfair bonus to the non-offenders, and unfairly punishes the offenders.

Quote

I have this worry that the idea of punishing the non-offenders is creeping into bridge, and I do not understand why.

It's not a matter of punishing them. It's a matter of not giving them an undeserved advantage.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2012-October-01, 01:27, said:

If that were the sole intention, the regulation would read "A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following its own insufficient bid."

But it doesn't. It reads "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." A rule of general applicability was probably written with a general objective. In this case the objective was probably to produce something close to a bridge result, by restoring the equity that existed before the irregularity without giving anyone an undeserved bonus.

Law 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.

Literally this law (with corresponding regulations) forbids a partnership to have different defences depending on whether oppopnents' call in response to a question is described as "A" or "B", and also prevents them from taking advantage of some of opponents' irregularities like insufficient bids.

I have already posed the following suggestion to Grattan for his ongoing project on the laws:

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked by either side, a response to a question given by own side, or any irregularity by own side.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-29, 07:58, said:

What? "The TD should punish you for bidding 1♥" regardless whether you have an agreement as to its meaning? I don't think so.

To me, 1♥ in this situation says "I have hearts, I probably don't have spades, and I have no reason to take up extra bidding space". IMO, that's "knowledge generally available to bridge players" and neither requires nor implies a prior agreement.

What if you and partner have agreed to play transfers over all overcalls. So 1♠ - (2♦) - X and 1♣ - (1♦) - X would both be hearts and 1♠ - (2♦) - 2♥ would be a good spade raise with 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♥ showing spades. Now the auction starts 1♠ - (2♦) to you. Is it completely clear that 1♥ shows hearts now (as opposed to double)? Are you allowed to draw "GBK" from a general meta-agreement to effectively create an agreement for the 1♥ call? If this is ok then it makes a mockery of the regulation that agreements are not allowed - after all, natural bidding is just a collection of such meta-agreements. If it is not ok then what is the pair supposed to do? They play this transfer defence over all overcalls so a natural 1♥ showing hearts makes no sense. Or are you really saying that only meta-agreements that the RA consider acceptable are allowed for calls when accepting an IB?

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-October-01, 01:43, said:

If you're answering the question "should it be allowed?", this is why not: When dealing with an accidental infraction, we should aim to restore equity, that is to return both sides to the position they were in before the infraction occurred. That objective is stated in the Laws, and I think most players would support it (though they might well argue about the practicalities).

I think most players do not think so. Players follow the Laws generally, and expect their opponents to do so. I think most players think it is important that players that do not get some sort of punishment. The obvious one, in a case where the opponents make an IB, is to be allowed to gain advantage from the IB.

You say the objective is to restore equity, and that is stated in the Laws. As happens, you have misquoted it: people who quote it as as part of an argument often ignore the word primarily.

Once someone fails to follow the Laws you will never have a "clean" auction [or play]. It seems very reasonable that opponents should get some benefit - and, in fact, the Laws often provide such a benefit. Now that, I believe, is what most players consider reasonable.