insufficient bids

[barmar]

I have wondered what people playing under such regulations do. OK, the first time you do it one way, then the next the opposite in order not to have an implicit agreement... but now you are out of options? What do you do the third time? Is there any call you can make?

If you're just using "bridge logic", you can do the same thing repeatedly, since the logic doesn't change. You're not forced to come up with a different meaning each time just to avoid creating an implicit agreement.

[barmar]

How can you not vary your agreements here? Is 1nt lebensohl or to play? 2nt is?

Yeah, there's something vague about the concept.

 

But it's kind of like to the law about what happens when an insufficient bidder corrects their bid -- there are different rules depending on whether the replacement has a similar meaning to the original. This has resulted in lots of confusion because it's not clear what the meaning of the insufficient bid is in the first place (it generally depends on why he made the insufficient bid -- did he not see the earlier bids, or did he just think they were a level lower?).

 

The answer in both cases is we try to make the best determination we can of what these things mean.

[nige1]

An example that features in discussions of insufficient bids in jurisdictions where the law forbids you to vary your agreements. You deal and the auction is

4♠ (4♥) Double (after the director has told partner his options)

After an opponent's overcall, your normal agreement would have been double for T/O.

You might argue, however, by bridge logic rather than by agreement, this double should be for penalties.

The problem is that after this kind of thing has happened a few times you have an implicit agreement. Even worse for the partnership is to participate in an on-line discussion like this.

 

Similar situations arise after a bid out of turn and so on.

 

Even in jurisdictions, where you are allowed to vary your agreements, legislators seem to be inconsistent. They should provide appropriate convention cards, with many extra pages, to allow you to specify such agreements. And local regulations should ensure that such agreements conform to their system-restrictions.

 

Bridge law experts (AFAIR, even WBFLC members) disagree about interpretations.

 

Of course, this gross farce could be avoided: Legislators could cleanse the rules of the daft and unnecessary player-options after infractions. That would make the rules fairer -- and much simpler :) Unfortunately, it would reduce the fun for law-makers, directors, and discussion-groups :(

[aguahombre]

After an opponent's overcall, your normal agreement would have been double for T/O. [/size]

You might argue, however, by bridge logic rather than agreement, this double should be for penalties.

The problem is that after this kind of thing has happened a few times you have an implicit agreement. Even worse for the partnership is to participate in an on-line discussion like this.

Not at all. Your normal agreement after a "normal" overcall has nothing to do with an agreement after an insufficient undercall. You could have an agreement and you would not be varying anything.

 

This post assumes you do have the agreement that, for instance, 4H (4S) Dbl is for takeout --- in itself pretty silly.

[nige1]

Not at all. Your normal agreement after a "normal" overcall has nothing to do with an agreement after an insufficient undercall. You could have an agreement and you would not be varying anything. This post assumes you do have the agreement that, for instance, 4H (4S) Dbl is for takeout --- in itself pretty silly.

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.

My example may be poor. It makes more sense with a bid out of turn. The main points are valid, however: Directors seem divided on interpretation; and law-makers created this unnecessary problem by granting options to players after infractions.

 

L40B3 seems weird, in other ways. Does it mean that you are allowed to vary your agreements when partner asks a question? Are law-breakers allowed to vary their agreements as well as their victims?

[Trinidad]

Ok. I can understand that after:

 

1NT-(1♥...2♥)-

 

I will have to play whatever I would have played after 1NT-(2♥)- (e.g. Lebensohl)

 

I can follow a line of reasoning (though I do not necessarily agree) that after 1NT-(1♥)-

 

I am not allowed have an agreement to a different meaning for the bids of 2♠ and higher. (They have to be Lebensohl too.)

 

However, I don't have any agreements about:

1♠

1NT

 

since these bids would not have been available to me without the irregularity.

 

Suppose that I write the following method in my system book:

 

1NT-(2♦/♥/♠)-

     Lebensohl

1NT-(1♦/♥/♠)-

     1x NAT, 4+ cards, F1

     Lebensohl

I could even write:

1NT-(any interference below 2NT)-

     Dbl penalty at the two level, takeout at the one level

     1x Nat, 4+ cards, F1

     2x Nat, NF

     2NT Puppet to 3♣

     3x etc. ...

 

How am I then varying my methods depending on the irregularity? I could argue that the method is the same whether there is an irregularity or not. It's just that part of my method isn't available to me when the opponents are uncooperative and play by the rules. ;)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Even in jurisdictions, where you are allowed to vary your agreements, legislators seem to be inconsistent. They should provide appropriate convention cards, with many extra pages,

 

Yes, this should work...

 

L40B3 seems weird, in other ways. Does it mean that you are allowed to vary your agreements when partner asks a question? Are law-breakers allowed to vary their agreements as well as their victims?

 

The EBU regulation stipulates that the varying can be applied only after an opponent's irregularity. With no regulation in place, I have always assumed that you may have and vary agreements after your own irregularities.

[Trick13]

...

In the Elections section of the ACBL edition of the laws is the following provision:

 

7. 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.

 

...

 

In New Zealand:

 

Law 40B3 Prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during theauction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited.

[beowulf]

This does seem to be an area where the non-offending side is getting the old heave-ho. Or heads you lose, tails they win.

 

I think it's quite clear that Barmar is correct in his interpretation of the laws. But the law can be, and often is, as the saying goes, an ass. That would be a British ass, not an American one, BTW. Presumably, this law dates (like many of the laws) from the days when conventions, such as Lebensohl, were much less common.

 

Really, the only thing going for the opening side is that for many (intervening) pairs, just making the bid sufficient will be illegal because it is likely to carry a different meaning (not all pairs, obviously). But if I play that 2H is a natural overcall of 1NT and I start by undercalling 1H, the worst that can happen to me is that I have to bid 2H. It does seem a little unfair to the opponents (the opening side and non-offenders) that they are not allowed to capitalize on my error.

 

Having said all this, I'm firmly of the opinion that, after an irregularity (either by partner or by the opponents) direct bids should be natural since, by law, they cannot have any pre-arranged meaning. So, to go back to the original post, it seems to me that there is nothing illegal in the following scheme after 1NT (IB):

• (don't accept) then use your normal agreements (the IB essentially never happened)
  
• (do accept) then take the (legally mandated) opportunity to bid naturally, so e.g. if you want to play 2C, just bid 2C.
  

[blackshoe]

I'm firmly of the opinion that, after an irregularity (either by partner or by the opponents) direct bids should be natural since, by law, they cannot have any pre-arranged meaning.

Is that what the law says?

[Vampyr]

Is that what the law says?

Whatever the law says, this is a possible interpretation of the ACBL election.

[TrialBid]

7. 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.

 

For this topic to even come up suggests to me that too many people have been playing online bridge for too long and have forgot what was considered general knowledge.

 

Point 1: You are not "varying" understandings because of an irregularity. You merely have agreements covering what to do in competitive situations which may be quite different from what you do uncontested. Moreover a sensible reading of the rules on insufficient bids makes it obvious that condoning an insufficient (or a bid out of turn) supersedes any irregularity as the instruction is that the auction proceeds without penalty (including any possible UI).

 

Point 2: Expert agreements have existed since long before I even played bridge covering some auctions. One I can cite from a book I own, Robert Ewen's Doubles. A double of an insufficient bid is unilaterally a penalty double. Period. It does not matter that if it were not insufficient it would have been negative. If the opponent has entered the auction unwisely, do not give him a chance to pass and bar his partner from an auction they shouldn't have entered!

[blackshoe]

What of this scenario:

 

1NT-(1♦*)-?. 1♦ is alerted, and the explanation is that if it were sufficient, it would show hearts. The opening side have the agreement that in the auction 1NT-(P)-2red, the response shows the next higher suit. What is 1NT-(1♦)-2♦ permitted to be? Must it show hearts? Really? What about 1NT-(1♦)-2♥? What about 1NT-1♦-1♥ or 1NT-1♦-1♠? In the last two, you can't be "varying" an agreement, because either you have no agreement, or you made one prior to the session, and you're going to bid according to that agreement.

 

If the lawmakers wanted us not to be allowed to make agreements regarding bids (or calls) which we would not have had available except for an irregularity, whyinhell didn't they just say that?

[barmar]

I think it's quite clear that Barmar is correct in his interpretation of the laws. But the law can be, and often is, as the saying goes, an ass. That would be a British ass, not an American one, BTW.

Ours are fatter, I suppose?

[aguahombre]

What of this scenario:

 

1NT-(1♦*)-?. 1♦ is alerted, and the explanation is that if it were sufficient, it would show hearts. The opening side have the agreement that in the auction 1NT-(P)-2red, the response shows the next higher suit. What is 1NT-(1♦)-2♦ permitted to be? Must it show hearts? Really? What about 1NT-(1♦)-2♥? What about 1NT-1♦-1♥ or 1NT-1♦-1♠? In the last two, you can't be "varying" an agreement, because either you have no agreement, or you made one prior to the session, and you're going to bid according to that agreement.

 

If the lawmakers wanted us not to be allowed to make agreements regarding bids (or calls) which we would not have had available except for an irregularity, whyinhell didn't they just say that?

Your scenario doesn't work. The only way 1♦ would have been alerted when insufficient over 1NT in that manner would be if the alerting person assumed a finger-fumble --- and then he should have kept his trap shut and allowed the replacement procedure to take place before alerting. They cannot have an agreement to make an insufficient bid and use it as a convention.

[Trinidad]

Point 2: Expert agreements have existed since long before I even played bridge covering some auctions. One I can cite from a book I own, Robert Ewen's Doubles. A double of an insufficient bid is unilaterally a penalty double. Period. It does not matter that if it were not insufficient it would have been negative. If the opponent has entered the auction unwisely, do not give him a chance to pass and bar his partner from an auction they shouldn't have entered!

It seems to make more sense to reverse those:

Not accepting the insufficient bid makes all doubles for penalty. (They will usually make the bid sufficient and you will score an extra undertrick.)

Accepting the insufficient bid makes all doubles for takeout. (You will have more bidding room to use.)

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

It seems to make more sense to reverse those:

Not accepting the insufficient bid makes all doubles for penalty. (They will usually make the bid sufficient and you will score an extra undertrick.)

Accepting the insufficient bid makes all doubles for takeout. (You will have more bidding room to use.)

 

Rik

1) There is no assurance they will make it sufficient.

2) there is no assurance a sufficient bid in the same suit is natural, and allowed.

3) Changing the meaning of a Double when the overcall is made sufficient following the irregularity is varying partnership agreements; assigning a meaning to a Double of an insufficient bid is not varying anything.

[blackshoe]

Your scenario doesn't work. The only way 1♦ would have been alerted when insufficient over 1NT in that manner would be if the alerting person assumed a finger-fumble --- and then he should have kept his trap shut and allowed the replacement procedure to take place before alerting. They cannot have an agreement to make an insufficient bid and use it as a convention.

Okay, it wasn't alerted, but questions were asked. Now what?

 

I do not suggest that they had such an agreement, btw.

[ArtK78]

This thread demonstrates conclusively that a lot of people have a lot of time on their hands.

[Vampyr]

3) Changing the meaning of a Double when the overcall is made sufficient following the irregularity is varying partnership agreements; assigning a meaning to a Double of an insufficient bid is not varying anything.

 

Don't forget that this is relevant only in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

Don't forget that this is relevant only in the ACBL.

Actually the meanings of the words "change" and "vary" should mean the same thing even in a country where real English is used. Nothing in my post which you quoted said anything about whether changes/variances are permitted in a particular jurisdiction.

[m1cha]

7. 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.

 

For quite a while I tried in vain to figure out situations where this law would be useful and necessary. The contemplations about the meanings of "vary" and "change" finally led me on what I think is the right track. I now believe that the purpose of the law is to prevent situations such as these:

 

a) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E bids 3♠, pre-emptive.

b) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E asks what this means, hears the response and bids 3♠, now invitational!

 

This is a variation of the understanding following a question, and in order to work it needs prior agreement (and it's not a change of the understanding, by the way).

 

Similar:

 

a) W opens 1NT, N bids 2♥ Cappelletti (two-suiter with ♥ and a minor).

b) W opens 2NT, N bids 1♥, has himself corrected to 2♥ which is now natural!

 

On the other hand we know the following is perfectly legal:

 

W opens 1♣, N bids 1♠ or 2♠, E bids 2NT. Obviously the meaning of the 2NT bid may depend on the strength or distribution of the opponent's hand or, nonwithstandng these, on the level of the opponent's overcall; and the right to have different meanings of this bid depending on the situation is not removed by asking the opponents about the meaning of their bid. Now this is certainly "by prior agreement" but it is obviously not what the law means by "varying the understanding [...] following a question".

 

In analogy to the paragraph before, if (W) 1NT, (N) 1♦ can become a legal bidding sequence after accepting the insufficient bid, there should not be unusual restrictions to assign meanings to the follow-up bids; no matter what you bid over two-level overcalls and no matter what you bid without interference, because those are different situations. (However, over (W) 1NT, (N) 1♥ corrected to 2♥ you may have to play the same as over (W) 1NT, (N) 2♥ at least in ACBL land and many other countries, though not in NZ as we have seen.) Unfortunately this is just my personal opinion and it is not binding to your next TD ;) .

 

@Shugart23: My suggestions for 1-over-1NT, keep it simple and useful

- 2-level and higher as if opponent had passed: Stayman and Jacoby for 5-cards suits, 2NT invitational if that's what you play.

- 1 in a suit and double: bids and follow-up auction as if partner had opened 1♣, including negative double, so you can find a 4-4 fit in a major with a weak hand.

- 1NT: for takeout, as you prefer: maybe a long minor (opener bids 2♣ to pass or correct - make sure this is valid in your country) or maybe both minors 4-4(+), opener selects.

- pass: you want the opponents to play, you have any very weak hand or you hold their suit in an up-to-medium hand.

[Vampyr]

Actually the meanings of the words "change" and "vary" should mean the same thing even in a country where real English is used. Nothing in my post which you quoted said anything about whether changes/variances are permitted in a particular jurisdiction.

 

Quite, but people in other jurisdictions don't need to concern themselves with whether they are changing or varying or whatevering their agreements.

 

But for people to whom it matters, knowing the meaning is important I agree.

[Vampyr]

For quite a while I tried in vain to figure out situations where this law would be useful and necessary. The contemplations about the meanings of "vary" and "change" finally led me on what I think is the right track. I now believe that the purpose of the law is to prevent situations such as these:

 

a) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E bids 3♠, pre-emptive.

b) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E asks what this means, hears the response and bids 3♠, now invitational!

 

This is a variation of the understanding following a question, and in order to work it needs prior agreement (and it's not a change of the understanding, by the way).

 

But in the EBU the law you quoted does not apply, but your a and b are not legal here.

[m1cha]

But in the EBU the law you quoted does not apply, but your a and b are not legal here.

Thanks for your comment, it made me google.

 

The law originates from the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" by the WBF where it takes the form (in Law 40 B3):

 

3. 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.

http://www.worldbridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/laws/2007lawscomplete.pdf

 

This is quoted in the "Laws of Duplicate Bridge" by the ACBL in Law 40B3, and taken up in the Elections section #7 with the phrase "may not vary" (as quoted by ArtK78).

http://www.acbl.org/acbl-content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf

 

From what I have seen so far I assume this is taken over by most RAs including NZ as shown by Trick13 and Germany (Turnierordnung §11(1)5).

http://www.bridge-verband.de/picture/doc/7

 

For the Scotish Bridge Union I found in the "Laws - for Directors": "Law 40B3: Prior agreements by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play followingquestion asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side is prohibited."

http://www.bridgewebs.com/kelso/SBU_Application%20of%202007%20Laws%20for%20TDs%20Bk.pdf

 

The EBU, in its Laws of Duplicate Bridge, copies the wording from the WBF, Law40B3, and specifies in its

"White Book 2013, Technical Matters" (of which I can only hope it applies):

 

(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.

(i)

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).

http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2013.pdf

(This puts straight a point I found unclear in all the other documents namely that you should be allowed to vary your auction depending on the explanation given by the opponents about their bidding.)

 

There is another document showing what this law is about and containing points I found quite interesting and unexpected:

"MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EBU LAWS & ETHICS COMMITTEE HELD AT BAKER TILLY OFFICES, 2 BLOOMSBURY STREET, LONDON ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 1ST 2014"

http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/minutes-and-reports/laws-and-ethics-committee/2014/01-october.pdf

 

5.7

Varying defence dependant on a question being asked

Correspondence was considered from Paul Barden who suggested that it was quite common practice for

players to vary their defence to alerted calls according to whether or not they ask about them (as a matter

of implicit not explicit understanding). For example, after (1C) P (1H: transfer), the meaning of 1S might

vary according to whether the player asks about the 1H bid. The Committee noted that under Law 40B3 the

Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the

auction or play following a question asked or, a response to a question and confirmed that it had taken the

RA option to disallow – WB 1.6.4(f) . The Committee noted that this may indeed happen but it is difficult to

prove from individual cases. The Committee recommended that pairs who play unusual methods and are

concerned about this practice should bring their methods to their opponents’ attention before the start of

the round. It is possible that inconsistencies in methods will show up over a longer time period. RB would

reply to Paul Barden.