[jeffford76]

In another thread I posted a response from rulings about agreements over insufficient bids that cited what appeared to me to be irrelevant laws. I responded with this:

Quote

Thank you for the response. I have some questions about the laws references as they aren't ones I would have considered.

I was particularly surprised to see 10C referenced. I would have thought the consultation that was prohibited was at the table, not prior to the game. To clarify here, does this mean that when I told my partner that I always accept opening bids out of turn to avoid having a random auction, that means the next time it happens at the table I have retroactively violated this law?

As to 40A2, isn't the insufficient bid part of the legal auction once it is accepted? (27A1)

In response I received the following, which makes the much more broad claim that I was unaware of that *all* agreements over *all* irregularities are illegal in the ACBL.

Quote

See also 40B3 - 'A partnership, by prior agreement, may not vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity.' The fact remains, you may only have agreements over legal actions, not over any irregularities.

An insufficient bid is only legal once it is accepted. That said, you may not have conventional agreements which apply when an insufficient bid occurs.

As to your added comment: So you think it is okay to have the agreement that whenever your LHO makes an opening lead out of turn you can have the agreement that your partner will always allow you to play the hand? You can't really think this is legal . . . No, you cannot have prearranged agreements over irregularities.

As an ACBL director I will rule in accordance with their wishes, but this seems bizarre to me. Why would the law give you the right to accept irregularities without the right for partner to know what you mean when you do so?

As to the "you can't really think", I always did think this was legal. I know that when I play with my wife, she will *always* make herself dummy after a lead out of turn. I don't even know whether we explicitly talked about this at some point or not, but it seems hard to believe that the legality of it depends on whether we did or didn't.

[hrothgar]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-15, 10:35, said:

I know that when I play with my wife, she will *always* make herself dummy after a lead out of turn. I don't even know whether we explicitly talked about this at some point or not, but it seems hard to believe that the legality of it depends on whether we did or didn't.

"'Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes."

Or in the case of the ACBL, "For they will bugger things up beyond belief"...

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-15, 10:35, said:

I know that when I play with my wife, she will *always* make herself dummy after a lead out of turn. I don't even know whether we explicitly talked about this at some point or not, but it seems hard to believe that the legality of it depends on whether we did or didn't.

Insane. So if your wife is reading this, she will have to occasionally choose another option so that you are not playing an illegal method? This is the best example yet of the impossibility of the ACBL's regulation.

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-15, 12:20, said:

So if your wife is reading this...

On the plus side, I'm quite sure that won't happen, so I'm saved at least this time.

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-15, 12:23, said:

On the plus side, I'm quite sure that won't happen, so I'm saved at least this time.

You still need to do something about the illegal implicit agreement derived from partnership experience.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps you should alert your wife's acceptance of the LOOT as being automatic and saying nothing about her hand - that might make for an interesting Director call and create a new thread here...

Seriously though here, does anyone have any examples of Meckwell, Hampco, or any of the other American expert pairs that play relays accepting an IB? It would seem strange to me if you could take them out of relays just by bidding 1♠ over a 1♠ response to 1♣, say, should they choose to accept it.

[CamHenry]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-16, 04:56, said:

Perhaps you should alert your wife's acceptance of the LOOT as being automatic and saying nothing about her hand - that might make for an interesting Director call and create a new thread here...

Seriously though here, does anyone have any examples of Meckwell, Hampco, or any of the other American expert pairs that play relays accepting an IB? It would seem strange to me if you could take them out of relays just by bidding 1♠ over a 1♠ response to 1♣, say, should they choose to accept it.

You can't: see law 23.

Law Book said:

LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage
through the irregularity.

If you could have been aware that oppo not being allowed to play their normal system ("no agreement is legal"), then you cannot gain by the irregularity.

[kenrexford]

I would love to hear the ACBL directors answer a question.

1♠-(1♦)-1♥?

Without discussion and agreement, 1♥ could be interpreted as:

(1) "I have a 2/1 GF, partner, as that is what 2♥ would show, but I am saving space by bidding only 1♥."

(2) "I have 4+ hearts with 5+ HCP, using the parallel of 1♥-P-1♠ as my guidance on what this means."

What about 1♠-(1♦)-2♥? Without discussion and agreement, this might be:

(1) "I have a weak jump shift."

(2) "I have my normal 2/1 with hearts."

Bridge logic does not compel a result as to either of these questions. So, how can you possibly accept the insufficient bid and then make a call without automatically violating the laws yourself?

How about this one?

1♠-(1♦)-P?

(1) Because I did not make the opponent bid 2♦, I must have interest in bidding more, because I am giving you more space. Had I no interest, I obviously would have forced acceptance of the bid. Thus, I must have some offensive values. Forcing 2♦ would have meant to not bid again as a strong suggestion."

(2) Because I did not make the opponent bid 2♦, I cannot have a trap pass. Had I forced the call of 2♦ and then passed, I must have mild interest in defending."

Although these are subtle dfifferences, these nuances are probably partnership-specific.

[Zelandakh]

CamHenry, on 2012-October-16, 08:28, said:

If you could have been aware that oppo not being allowed to play their normal system ("no agreement is legal"), then you cannot gain by the irregularity.

They are allowed to play their normal system - they just cannot (apparently) have any agreements after accepting an IB which would normally be a good idea for them. I find it very hard to believe that these pairs do not have methods and am asking if anyone has ever seen or heard of this situation turning up.

[campboy]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-16, 08:40, said:

(2) Because I did not make the opponent bid 2♦, I cannot have a trap pass. Had I forced the call of 2♦ and then passed, I must have mild interest in defending."

You can't force 2♦, since the player could choose something else, silencing his partner. Several years ago I saw a similar situation playing in a teams event with hybrid scoring (EBU and 1997 laws). Opponents were our usual teammates, and my partner made an insufficient bid, vulnerable against not, in the auction 1♠ pass 2♦ 2♣. The TD explained the options, and opener, with a clear penalty double of clubs, thought he needed to accept it and double because my partner "obviously couldn't have a good enough suit to bid 3♣". Responder (correctly) thought my partner would have changed it to 3♣ and so expected this to be takeout.

[jeffford76]

One more set of correspondence.

I wrote

Quote

Is the general principle that you can't have any agreements over irregularities written down somewhere (laws committee minutes perhaps) or is it just something directors know? Or do you think that position is derivable from the laws themselves?

To answer your question, I did think this was a valid agreement as I could find no law prohibiting it. I accept that in the ACBL it is not, but I would be more comfortable ruling this way if I had something I could cite to back me up.

The reply from rulings was

Quote

Jeff, with 2000 masterpoints I just can't fathom how you could think this could be legal. Here is a start for you:

10C
40A2
40B3

These are the same two laws referenced before that don't seem relevant to me (unless you read 10C very strangely to include prior-to-the-irregularity consultation) and an added one about secret agreements that seems equally irrelevant. That said I can't imagine any further correspondence with this director would be productive, so I won't be continuing the conversation.

[jeffford76]

kenrexford, on 2012-October-16, 08:40, said:

I would love to hear the ACBL directors answer a question.

I would encourage you to email them your question. I doubt they will see it here.

[blackshoe]

There are ACBL directors here.

Personally, I'd like to ask the ACBL CTD, but there isn't one — the ACBL has apparently abolished the post.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-16, 09:06, said:

They are allowed to play their normal system - they just cannot (apparently) have any agreements after accepting an IB which would normally be a good idea for them. I find it very hard to believe that these pairs do not have methods and am asking if anyone has ever seen or heard of this situation turning up.

It seems to me that player who are playing relay methods based on steps would not be affected by this regulation. If a call means something based on what portion of the available space it uses, it doesn't matter at all what the lower limit of that space is.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-16, 10:47, said:

It seems to me that player who are playing relay methods based on steps would not be affected by this regulation. If a call means something based on what portion of the available space it uses, it doesn't matter at all what the lower limit of that space is.

From the above correspondence with the ACBL TD:
"That said, you may not have conventional agreements which apply when an insufficient bid occurs."

Do you not think relay responses count as conventional? I agree that this is completely stupid but every time someone say something logical such as Andy's "You can have the agreements because this is a new agreement, not varying an agreement", someone points out that in the ACBL any agreement is illegal. Then the discussion works its way into some kind of loop. Therefore I am still asking about some top ACBL pairs that play such methods to find out what really happens in competition, as opposed to what happens in ACBL clubs, and how they get around the apparent regulations (which I am sure they do).

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-17, 02:21, said:

From the above correspondence with the ACBL TD:
"That said, you may not have conventional agreements which apply when an insufficient bid occurs."

Do you not think relay responses count as conventional? I agree that this is completely stupid but every time someone say something logical such as Andy's "You can have the agreements because this is a new agreement, not varying an agreement", someone points out that in the ACBL any agreement is illegal. Then the discussion works its way into some kind of loop. Therefore I am still asking about some top ACBL pairs that play such methods to find out what really happens in competition, as opposed to what happens in ACBL clubs, and how they get around the apparent regulations (which I am sure they do).

Oh Dear ! ?

Does that mean that if a partnership using for instance "advanced precision" where the majority of calls are conventional then they are banned from using their system (in ACBL) once an opponent has made an insufficient bid?

I cannot believe it.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-17, 02:21, said:

Do you not think relay responses count as conventional? I agree that this is completely stupid but every time someone say something logical such as Andy's "You can have the agreements because this is a new agreement, not varying an agreement", someone points out that in the ACBL any agreement is illegal. Then the discussion works its way into some kind of loop. Therefore I am still asking about some top ACBL pairs that play such methods to find out what really happens in competition, as opposed to what happens in ACBL clubs, and how they get around the apparent regulations (which I am sure they do).

In case you haven't noticed, the ACBL is grossly incompetent at communication.

The organization is incapable of producing anything equivalent to the White/Orange/Tangerine book.
The very notion that it is desirable to produce something equivalent to case law and/or consistent rulings seems foreign to the organization.

Practically speaking, even in serious events you are essentially left to deal with the ill informed whims of whatever director happens to be at hand. (Lord knows what said director is using to guide his decision making).

You may be able to straighten things out later on during an appeals hearing.

[barmar]

I'd like to give the ACBL official the benefit of the doubt, and think that he's just having a hard time describing what he means precisely. Unless you've participated in discussions like this, you may not realize the complexity of the situation. I think when he says "agreements which apply when an insufficient bid occurs" he means that the agreements are specific to the case when an insufficient bid occurs (i.e. he meant "only when an insufficient bid occurs").

E.g. if your normal agreement is that a response on the 1 level shows 6+ HCP, then that agreement still applies in the auction 1♠-(1♦)-1♥. And if you play step responses after an overcall, it should be fine if the steps are the same regardless of whether the overcall is sufficient or insufficient.

What you can't do is play steps over sufficient overcalls, natural over insufficient overcalls (or insufficient overcalls that have been made sufficient).

[CarlRitner]

I still can't see the "extra bidding space" advantage in accepting an IB,
if no agreements can be made as to what to do with that space.

Am I thinking ACBL-correctly here??

[Vampyr]

CarlRitner, on 2012-October-17, 17:50, said:

I still can't see the "extra bidding space" advantage in accepting an IB,
if no agreements can be made as to what to do with that space.

There are a few things you can do without agreements -- raise partner or bid a new suit at a lower level when the level over a legal bid might have been dangerously high, for example.