Lebensohl at the one-level

[mrdct]

I had this auction at the club duplicate the other night:

 

1NT:(1♥):1NT:

 

Is it legal to have a partnership agreement to play 1NT as lebensohl after a 1-level insufficient overcall?

[Vampyr]

I had this auction at the club duplicate the other night:

 

1NT:(1♥):1NT:

 

Is it legal to have a partnership agreement to play 1NT as lebensohl after a 1-level insufficient overcall?

This depends on whether Australia has exercised the regional option in Law 40B3, which allows players to have agreements following irregularities. The EBU has decided that one is allowed to have agreements after the other side's irregularities only. If Australia has accepted the Law as written, then you are allowed to have agreements on bidding sequences that include your own insufficient bids.

[pran]

I had this auction at the club duplicate the other night:

 

1NT:(1♥):1NT:

 

Is it legal to have a partnership agreement to play 1NT as lebensohl after a 1-level insufficient overcall?

This depends on whether Australia has exercised the regional option in Law 40B3, which allows players to have agreements following irregularities. The EBU has decided that one is allowed to have agreements after the other side's irregularities only. If Australia has accepted the Law as written, then you are allowed to have agreements on bidding sequences that include your own insufficient bids.

Would you please care to elaborate?

 

The second (your own) 1NT bid is not insufficient, and therefore no irregularity once you accept the insufficient 1♥ bid by your RHO.

 

Law 27A1 exists (partly) in order to allow NOS the choice of obtaining extra bidding space after an opponent's insufficient bid.

 

Not allowing NOS to adapt the second 1NT bid as Lebensohl in this position is analogous to forbidding a partnership to have agreements where the meaning of some of their calls depend on information from opponents on the meaning of their (preceding) calls, like using double for penalty over weak skip bids and double for takeout over strong skip bids (revealed in response to a question).

[Bende]

I had this auction at the club duplicate the other night:

 

1NT:(1♥):1NT:

 

Is it legal to have a partnership agreement to play 1NT as lebensohl after a 1-level insufficient overcall?

This depends on whether Australia has exercised the regional option in Law 40B3, which allows players to have agreements following irregularities. The EBU has decided that one is allowed to have agreements after the other side's irregularities only. If Australia has accepted the Law as written, then you are allowed to have agreements on bidding sequences that include your own insufficient bids.

In Sweden, the option in law 40B3 is not used. However, when agreements after irregularities was discussed six months ago, the laws committee said that laws 23 and 27D meant it could result in a changed score.

 

Perhaps it is different since the discussions revolved around agreements after your own irregularities. It was based on a discussion of the 2007 laws by Ton Kooijman (Laws commentary).

[helene_t]

The issue is not mentioned in the ABF system regulations (http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFSystemRegs09.pdf)

 

I suppose this means that this Lebensohl agreement is allowed in Australia.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Helene — if the ABF have not said anything, then the agreement is legal.

 

What the ACBL has done is to say

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.

 

I'm not sure that an agreement of the nature we're talking about (what does a call accepting an IB mean?) "varies" an agreement, when the call concerned would ordinarily be itself insufficient. Sven is right that the second 1NT in the given auction is not insufficient (Laws 18 C & D). One could hardly have an agreement as to what it would mean if it were insufficient, so having an agreement that accepting the IB and treating it as Lebensohl doesn't seem to me to "vary" anything. So I would think it a legal agreement, even in the ACBL.

 

I suppose the question might arise wrt to, say, 2♥. Now, had the auction gone 1NT-(P)-2♥, the last call might be a transfer to spades, but under the "accept and low Lebensohl" agreement, in 1NT-(1♥)-2♥, the last call is Stayman (and 2♦ would be natural and forcing, not a transfer to ♥). Is this "varying" their agreement? It seems so, which would make it illegal to have that agreement in the ACBL (which by extension would probably make the 1NT bid we're discussing also illegal). But I agree with Sven — part of the purpose of Law 27A is to allow pairs to make use of the extra bidding room provided by an IB. It doesn't make sense to prohibit players from doing so. On the gripping hand, this wouldn't be the only thing an RA — particularly the ACBL — does that doesn't make any sense. :)

[bluejak]

I doubt the ACBL would agree with your logic even so. My guess is that they would tend to rule it illegal.

 

Speaking of logic, it is not logical that if the ABF have not mentioned it then it is legal. It also depends on their general approach. If it is that anything not mentioned is allowed, you are right: if it is that anything not mentioned is disallowed then you are wrong. To be fair, I think it is the former for the ABF.

 

In England, we allow agreements over opponent's infractions, but the agreements have to be legal otherwise. However, since any response to 1NT is permitted, 1NT Lebensohl is permitted.

 

Not allowing NOS to adapt the second 1NT bid as Lebensohl in this position is analogous to forbidding a partnership to have agreements where the meaning of some of their calls depend on information from opponents on the meaning of their (preceding) calls, like using double for penalty over weak skip bids and double for takeout over strong skip bids (revealed in response to a question).

It does not matter one iota what it is analogous to. I am sick in England of people writing and saying "You allow the Multi at Level 3 so how can you not allow the Sven Pran 1D opening?". What matters is that the Laws have made clear that agreements, especially over infractions, are a matter of regulation for the regulating authority, so what matters is what that authority says.

[blackshoe]

Sorry David, I added that last paragraph while you were responding. I guess what it says is that I agree that the ACBL would probably say the "Lebensohl" agreement is illegal, but I don't understand their logic, given Sven's comment.

[OleBerg]

I guess what it says is that I agree that the ACBL would probably say the "Lebensohl" agreement is illegal, but I don't understand their logic, given Sven's comment.

Neither do I.

 

Just imagine:

 

1♠ - (1♦) - ???

 

If my regular partner accepted the bid and double, it is highly likely we would be on the same wavelenght: Hearts+limited values.

 

If the opponents asked, I would tell them: No agreements. (As it would be illegal to have one.)

 

If we had made an agreement, my opponents would be better off.

 

Strange???

[pran]

Exactly what is the intention of Law 41B3: 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

 

Case 1: Question or response to a question.

My RHO deals and opens the auction with (say) 3♠.

 

A: The agreement between me and my partner is that if I ask a question and then double then regardless of the answer received this double is for penalty while if I double without asking any question then my double will be for takeout. This agreement must obviously be illegal. I have used the question (alone) as a means to vary the meaning of the double

 

B: Our agreement is that double is for takeout if the 3♠ bid is strong and for penalty if the 3♠ bid is weak. For whatever reason (e.g. lack of information on opponents' CC) I need to ask in order to know whether the 3♠ bid is weak or strong. Is there any sensible reason why my question and/or opponent's answer shall make this agreement (varying the meaning of the double) illegal?

 

Case 2: Irregularity:

I consider it perfectly sensible that an offending side may not use their own irregularity as a means to trigger the varying of an agreement, but I see no sensible reason why the non-offending side cannot make the most out of an irregular situation caused by the offending side.

[campboy]

IMO, here you are not "varying your understanding" based on an irregularity, since it is impossible to have this auction without an irregularity. If you are varying it, what are you varying it from?

 

I would think that the sort of thing that the option forbids is playing different methods after an insufficient 1♥ overcall (not accepted) is corrected to 2♥ than you would over a 2♥ overcall without irregularity.

 

Now as bluejak suggests it is proper to rule according to the RA's interpretation of the law even if I disagree with it. Has the ACBL given clear guidance for this situation, though?

[mycroft]

In the ACBL it is illegal to have an agreement about continuations after an irregularity. It's a WeaSeL situation - albeit one that, without this regulation, could be legal.

 

I realize some of these continuations are illegal attempts to transmit UI, but:

 

1S-1H-1S: 2-card spade support, minimum hand

1S-1H-2S: 3-card spade support, constructive raise

1S-1H/please correct/2H-2S: 3-card spade support, minimum hand

1S-1H-X: minors

1S-1H/PC/2H-X: Rosenkranz

1S-1H/call TD, accept- ...whole other set of sequences

1S-1H/call TD, force correct- ...whole other set of sequences

 

...and I think - emphasis THINK - that the ones that are using UI for agreements are the ones the ACBL wants to deny, and because of the difficulty in determining whether its UI or agreements and the difficulty getting evidence of a clearly non-standard agreement they just decided to blanket ban it.

 

Yes, it causes problems because "bridge logic" and evidence of action, causing implied partnership understandings - even if, again, "bridge logic" means everybody would work it out - now put you into "can't help breaking regs" territory.

And no, I have no idea what to do about that.

[Cyberyeti]

A common and sensible agreement is that if you double without forcing a correction of an insufficient bid it's for takeout, if you force correction then double it's for penalties even if the double according to your card should be for takeout. My understanding is that it's OK to do this in the EBU, but not sure in other jurisdictions.

[Vampyr]

The second (your own) 1NT bid is not insufficient, and therefore no irregularity once you accept the insufficient 1♥ bid by your RHO.

Gosh, I don't know how I managed to misread the auction! Everything I said before was rubbish. You are probably permitted to do what you like.

[Pict]

There is some remarkable 'logic' being applied here.

 

1. Is an insufficient bid an irregularity?

 

I believe the answer is yes.

 

2. Can I modify my agreements following the insufficient bid.

 

Depends.

 

3. Can I pretend that if I accept the insufficient bid by making a call, that it never happened and I evade any relevant rules, and my bids can mean anything bizarre I like.

 

Get a life guys.

[pran]

In the ACBL it is illegal to have an agreement about continuations after an irregularity.  It's a WeaSeL situation - albeit one that, without this regulation, could be legal.

 

I realize some of these continuations are illegal attempts to transmit UI, but:

 

1S-1H-1S: 2-card spade support, minimum hand

1S-1H-2S: 3-card spade support, constructive raise

1S-1H/please correct/2H-2S: 3-card spade support, minimum hand

1S-1H-X: minors

1S-1H/PC/2H-X: Rosenkranz

1S-1H/call TD, accept- ...whole other set of sequences

1S-1H/call TD, force correct- ...whole other set of sequences

 

...and I think - emphasis THINK - that the ones that are using UI for agreements are the ones the ACBL wants to deny, and because of the difficulty in determining whether its UI or agreements and the difficulty getting evidence of a clearly non-standard agreement they just decided to blanket ban it.

 

Yes, it causes problems because "bridge logic" and evidence of action, causing implied partnership understandings - even if, again, "bridge logic" means everybody would work it out - now put you into "can't help breaking regs" territory.

And no, I have no idea what to do about that.

Looks far too complicated, but my natural instinct is that if RHO bids 1♥ "under" my partner's opening bid of 1♠ I should be allowed to accept this insufficient bid and bid 1♠ to show support, but not sufficient to raise to 2♠.

 

In other words something like 3+ spades and 3-5 HCP value.

 

I shall also fancy 1♠ - 1♥ - X to show minors (extending the negative double to a cheap level). Actually quite logical, but I have never thought of that one.

 

For instance distinguishing between calling and not calling the Director in order to vary the meaning of my subsequent call is IMHO clearly illegal.

[blackshoe]

I think the way the ACBL views this is that you're allowed to bid what you like. What you're not allowed to do is make an agreement with partner as to what you might bid, and what it would mean. It's kind of like psyching — you can't have a partnership agreement to do that, either. So if the frequency of some particular class of IB is such as to establish an implicit understanding, now you can no longer do what you've been doing (e.g., accept and bid 1♠ to show a "substandard" raise to two). But maybe my understanding is flawed. :blink: :unsure:

[Vampyr]

So if the frequency of some particular class of IB is such as to establish an implicit understanding, now you can no longer do what you've been doing (e.g., accept and bid 1♠ to show a "substandard" raise to two). But maybe my understanding is flawed. ;)  ;)

I believe that your understanding is correct; it is the Laws' allowing this that is flawed.

 

Basically, this NBO is denying players the right to accept an insufficient bid (if you can't use the extra room, you might as well not accept the bid.)

 

Of course, certain bids, like raising partner to the 1 level to indicate a weak hand, may be considered "general bridge knowledge" rather than partnership agreements. It's kind of like making a penalty double when partner is barred from bidding -- few people have discussed it and fewer have ever experienced it, but everyone would know the meaning if it came up.

[bluejak]

I do not approve of the ACBL's regulation, but surely it is clear enough really. You are not allowed any agreement that is specific to an infraction. So if you play 1♠ [any overcall] double as takeout, you may not play it as penalties just because the overcall is insufficient. Alternatively you may not play that double of a correction is penalties. Both of these are varying agreements because of infractions so illegal.

 

But 1♠ [1♥] 1♠ is just natural and not varying anything.

[campboy]

So if you play "after we open 1NT and there is a non-jump overcall, cheapest NT bid is lebensohl"?

[bluejak]

Very clever. If that is on your CC, I would rule it ok if I were an ACBL TD with a sense of humour. If your CC indicated that 2NT was Lebensohl I would rule against you.

 

Ok, ok, it is not a great regulation.

[mjj29]

Very clever. If that is on your CC, I would rule it ok if I were an ACBL TD with a sense of humour. If your CC indicated that 2NT was Lebensohl I would rule against you.

 

Ok, ok, it is not a great regulation.

Well, I do play a system where 1NT is sometimes lebensohl even without an insufficient bid, which is in our system notes, although not on the card. I also note that the EBU 20B convention card has a section for "After Interference" next to which I have written "Lebensohl". It doesn't say "After _sufficient_ interference".

[bluejak]

You are playing in the EBU where it is legal to have agreements after opponents' infractions so it does not matter. The question seems to be what may be played when playing in a jurisdiction where this is not the case.

[aguahombre]

I have no opinion to contribute --you are welcome, David. But I do have a question about "GBK", vs. established agreements.

 

Experienced long-time partnerships have probably run into nearly everything by now. So, 1S (1H) 1S, or one of the other variations, has come up before. Does that put (perhaps unfair) restrictions on ACBL pairs who are experienced? Is that now illegal for them or merely alertable? I know you already said that the ACBL regulations in this area are not great. But, how should we work with what we have?

[bluejak]

Best is not to discuss them, but to assume partner is sensible when they happen, I suppose. But I much prefer the English approach.

 

If you are going to discuss them, any clever approaches are probably illegal, so just agree on simple approaches, eg double is Sputnik, raises are natural, and so forth.