[nige1]

In the "Pay attention partner" topic, L40B3 was mentioned. Currently several laws provide options for both sides. Then Law 40B3 may to kick in, by default

TFLB L40B3 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.

Some regulating authorities make their elections explicit

EBU Orange Book 7D1 said:

(f) Under 40B3 (a) a pair is NOT allowed to vary its understandings by prior
agreement during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by either
side.
(g) Under Law 40B3 (b) a pair is allowed to vary its understandings by prior
agreement during the auction or play consequent on a response by the
opponents to a question by this pair.
(h) Under Law 40B3 © a pair is NOT allowed to vary its understandings by prior
agreement during the auction or play consequent on a response by this pair to a
question by the opponents.
(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 27B1 (b).

IMO the rules shouldn't provide options after infractions but I am intrigued as to how players profit from them:

• If an RA allows such agreements, how does a pair disclose them to opponents. For example, where do they appear on a WBF or EBU system card?
• What contingent agreements work best over an opponent's infraction?
• The EBU allows offenders to vary their agreements, too. Any suggestions for them?
• How should you defend against such agreements?
• Has any RA elected to disallow such agreements?
• Suppose that your RA elects to disallow such agreements. You deal but LHO opens 4♥ out of turn. Partner calls the director, hears his options, accepts the bid, and doubles. Normally you play T/O to 4♥ but your Bridge logic tells you this double is penalty. May you pass? What about next time?

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL version of the Laws: Law 40B3: 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.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-23, 22:04, said:

From the ACBL version of the Laws: Law 40B3: 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.

Which literally says that a partnership may not have prior agreements to vary for instance their defense against opponents' calls depending on opponents' responses to questions on such Calls.

A response reveals for instance whether a double is for takeout or penalty, may a partnership have different prior agreements on their understandings for each such alternative?

[mink]

The German regulating authority disallows any change of understanding after questions, answers or irregularities.

[pran]

mink, on 2013-April-24, 01:41, said:

The German regulating authority disallows any change of understanding after questions, answers or irregularities.

A sensible rule would be to prohibit change of partnership understanding after:
1: questions from either side
2: answers given by own side
3: irregularities comitted by own side.

I should be allowed to adapt my own side agreements and understandings according to revelations of opponents' agreements and understandings and I should be allowed to use the extra bidding Space becoming available from accepting an insufficient bid by an opponent.

I should of course not be allowed to open any door for varying my partnership understandings just by asking a question, from replying to a question asked by an opponent or from comitting an irregularity.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-April-23, 19:37, said:

IMO the rules shouldn't provide options after infractions but I am intrigued as to how players profit from them:

How would you rewrite rules on IBs and COOTs without giving the next player options?

Quote

The EBU allows offenders to vary their agreements, too.

This is, bizarrely, what the Law says, but I do not believe that the EBU allow offenders to vary their agreements (or to have agreements in the first place).

[barmar]

The questions asking for advice for players when variation is allowed probably belong in the General Bridge Forum, they aren't really legal questions (when gay marriage is legalized, would you ask lawyers for advice on venues for the ceremony?).

[ggwhiz]

I once had one where pard opened 1♠ and rho bid 1♥ which I accepted and bid 1♠ on a 3 count. Similarly after a 1nt bid by lho out of turn, not accepted I'm making a lead directing bid on trash.

Not previously discussed despite our system telephone book but I can't envision any partnership agreements happening or evidence that they exist.

[barmar]

Most of what players do in situations like this is just "bridge logic". Accepting an IB gives you additional bidding space, and players can usually figure out why their partner decided to take advantage of it. It doesn't (or at least I think it shouldn't) become an "agreement" just because it has come up a few times and you judged consistently -- the opponents can apply the same bridge logic.

I think this clause should only regard whether a partnership may or may not have "special" agreements (what the Laws used to call conventional). "Natural" (in the context of the infraction) meanings should be allowed.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-24, 07:42, said:

How would you rewrite rules on IBs and COOTs without giving the next player options?

Reply in IBS and COOTs topic

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-24, 07:42, said:

This is, bizarrely, what the Law says, but I do not believe that the EBU allow offenders to vary their agreements (or to have agreements in the first place).

I imagine what is intended is that if an irregularity by your side has silenced partner, you are entitled to take that into account.

It is worth bearing in mind that Law 40B3 only gives the RA power to disallow variations which would otherwise be allowed. It does not give them the power to allow any methods which are already prohibited by some other law (eg 16A3).

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-April-24, 10:36, said:

It doesn't (or at least I think it shouldn't) become an "agreement" just because it has come up a few times and you judged consistently

I think that it is quite clear that it does, which is why the ACBL election seems impossible to obey.

Quote

"Natural" (in the context of the infraction) meanings should be allowed.

It's not, if it varies from... what? This is another problem -- if you have your agreements in place you don't have to vary them. So perhaps the ACBL election means nothing.

campboy, on 2013-April-24, 11:42, said:

I imagine what is intended is that if an irregularity by your side has silenced partner, you are entitled to take that into account.

Perhaps that is what is intended, but it is not what the law says. It would probably be better to limit L40 to opponents' irregularities, and include in law dealing with a player being barred or having a MPC that this information is AI to partner.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2013-April-24, 10:36, said:

I think this clause should only regard whether a partnership may or may not have "special" agreements (what the Laws used to call conventional). "Natural" (in the context of the infraction) meanings should be allowed.

We have had this discussion before. If a pair have the agreement that they play transfers in competition then I do not see why they should not continue to be allowed to over an IB. That is, after all, their agreement and it requires a new agreement for them to play "natural" here. I also find it impossible to believe that a pair playing together for 30+ years would not have some kind of implicit agreement. It is completely illogical for such agreements to be illegal.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-25, 06:25, said:

We have had this discussion before. If a pair have the agreement that they play transfers in competition then I do not see why they should not continue to be allowed to over an IB. That is, after all, their agreement and it requires a new agreement for them to play "natural" here.

Continuing to play transfers would not be a variation in methods, so no problem.

Quote

I also find it impossible to believe that a pair playing together for 30+ years would not have some kind of implicit agreement. It is completely illogical for such agreements to be illegal.

I guess my wording "natural" wasn't right, what I meant was something like "obvious". If the meaning of something is obvious, based on bridge logic, should we really disallow it just because it has come up enough that they've come to expect it? If a pick-up partner would likely come to the same conclusion as a partner of 30 years, should we prohibit the latter players to use the method?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-April-25, 08:51, said:

If a pick-up partner would likely come to the same conclusion as a partner of 30 years, should we prohibit the latter players to use the method?

I don't think so. This is why the ACBL election is a mistake.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-24, 07:42, said:

This is, bizarrely, what the Law says, but I do not believe that the EBU allow offenders to vary their agreements (or to have agreements in the first place).

The relevant part of the OB has already been quoted "(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 27B1 (b)."

Bear in mind 72B1 puts some context around this.

Here are some reasons why you might choose to have agreements about things following your own irregularity:
- if partner has a minor penalty card, he will often choose to play it given it's known rather than give an accurate signal
- if partner has a major penalty card, playing it does not give a signal
- if partner has a major penalty card and declarer demands a lead of that suit (say diamonds) then the lead will be suit preference rather than attitude in the suit
- if partner makes an insufficient bid and it is accepted system is now off / system is now on but at a lower level
- if partner is forced to pass throughout we no longer play michaels cue bids

A lot of these might be considered 'just bridge' but if they have come up multiple times (not necessarily a good thing) then you might have developed partnership experience and understandings.

The EBU took the practical approach that many things may become understandings once they've come up more than once, and if it tried to forbid them it would have a very difficult job to decide what was 'just bridge' and what wasn't; while it couldn't see any reason not to allow explicit agreements in these situations. We just took the view that you shouldn't be allowed to agree that (say) if you made an insufficient bid then the lowest sufficient bid was now defined to mean exactly what the insufficient bid 'meant'.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-25, 14:17, said:

We just took the view that you shouldn't be allowed to agree that (say) if you made an insufficient bid then the lowest sufficient bid was now defined to mean exactly what the insufficient bid 'meant'.

So, you open 2H (weak), partner bids 2NT (Ogust enquiry) and RHO overcalls 3S which, blind as a bat, you do not see. Now if you bid 3D, showing a bad suit and good points, I think you are allowed to substitute Pass, showing a 3D bid, playing DOPI and ROPI over bids over 2NT?

I thought you were always allowed to substitute a sufficient bid of the same meaning, even if it happens to be the lowest sufficient bid. You are allowed to agree that the lowest sufficient bid (or any sufficient bid for that matter) is defined to mean exactly what the insufficient bid meant, provided it would mean that without the insufficient bid being made.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-25, 06:25, said:

We have had this discussion before. If a pair have the agreement that they play transfers in competition then I do not see why they should not continue to be allowed to over an IB. That is, after all, their agreement and it requires a new agreement for them to play "natural" here. I also find it impossible to believe that a pair playing together for 30+ years would not have some kind of implicit agreement. It is completely illogical for such agreements to be illegal.

That doesn't ever seem to stop lawmakers (in or out of bridge) does it?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-April-25, 08:51, said:

I guess my wording "natural" wasn't right, what I meant was something like "obvious". If the meaning of something is obvious, based on bridge logic, should we really disallow it just because it has come up enough that they've come to expect it? If a pick-up partner would likely come to the same conclusion as a partner of 30 years, should we prohibit the latter players to use the method?

It sounds to me like you're describing a case of "matters generally known to bridge players" (Law 40B6a). Such matters are specifically exempted from disclosure requirements. I don't think an RA has the power to prohibit them.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2013-April-25, 17:25, said:

So, you open 2H (weak), partner bids 2NT (Ogust enquiry) and RHO overcalls 3S which, blind as a bat, you do not see. Now if you bid 3D, showing a bad suit and good points, I think you are allowed to substitute Pass, showing a 3D bid, playing DOPI and ROPI over bids over 2NT?

The aim of the regulation is that you may not change the meaning of <sufficient bid>-replacing-<insufficient bid> from the meaning of <sufficient bid> (without the insufficient bid), at least you may not change to a meaning that would not silence partner under Law 27B1b.

[Sorry, this stuff is impossible to write!]

You can agree that 2H-P-2N-3S-3D/P = DOPI [= step 2 = bad suit and good points],
if your agreement is that 2H-P-2N-3S-P = DOPI.

But if your agreement is 2H-P-2N-3S-P = min [= bad points], then you can not agree a meaning for 2H-P-2N-3S-3D/P which is (or is more precise than) "bad suit and bad points". But you may "agree" to play 2H-P-2N-3S-3D/P = "very bad, not prepared to play 4H" because now Pass will silence partner, and we are now in the realms of permitting bridge logic.