Comparable Call

[sanst]

There is No UI in a comparable call case - law 23B. (And yes, it can be difficult to explain a comparable call since most players have probably not come accross it in the 18 months since its release.)

Sorry, I should have written “damaged”.

[sanst]

There is No UI in a comparable call case - law 23B. (And yes, it can be difficult to explain a comparable call since most players have probably not come accross it in the 18 months since its release.)

There is when Law 23A and B are dropped, which is what I propose. The BOOT or IB is withdrawn and the bidding returns to whoever’s turn it is or is replaced by a sufficient bid and the auction continues without restrictions. The information from the withdrawn bid is UI for partner and lead restrictions apply. Law 23C can remain and the use of UI would be part of “damage caused by the infraction”.

[lamford]

There is when Law 23A and B are dropped, which is what I propose. The BOOT or IB is withdrawn and the bidding returns to whoever’s turn it is or is replaced by a sufficient bid and the auction continues without restrictions. The information from the withdrawn bid is UI for partner and lead restrictions apply. Law 23C can remain and the use of UI would be part of “damage caused by the infraction”.

That is broadly the DavidBurn approach. As one might expect it is very sensible which is why it has not yet been adopted.

[barmar]

Try explaining that to the players at the table and make sure they act accordingly. This CC business isn’t working at all and it’s high time the WBFLC recognizes the fact.

I think "isn't working at all" is an overbid.

 

Most of the time it's not that hard determining comparable calls. It seems difficult here because we only have threads about the tricky cases. These are the exceptions, not the norm.

[sanst]

I think "isn't working at all" is an overbid.

 

Most of the time it's not that hard determining comparable calls. It seems difficult here because we only have threads about the tricky cases. These are the exceptions, not the norm.

Actually, it’s worse among club players in Holland. They usually correct their bid without the help of the director and without knowing the laws. Afterwards they might ask you what should have happened :rolleyes:

[weejonnie]

Actually, it’s worse among club players in Holland. They usually correct their bid without the help of the director and without knowing the laws. Afterwards they might ask you what should have happened :rolleyes:

Maybe an article in a club magazine, or disseminated otherwise.

 

He who knows not and does not know thath he knows not can be taught - teach him.

[gordontd]

Maybe an article in a club magazine, or disseminated otherwise.

 

He who knows not and does not know thath he knows not can be taught - teach him.

We in the EBU produced a very short notice for players about this at the time of the introduction of the new laws, which any other NBO would be welcome to print or link to if they thought it would be helpful.

[barmar]

Actually, it’s worse among club players in Holland. They usually correct their bid without the help of the director and without knowing the laws. Afterwards they might ask you what should have happened :rolleyes:

I'll bet they were doing the same thing under the old laws, too, so it's not really relevant.

[sanst]

I'll bet they were doing the same thing under the old laws, too, so it's not really relevant.

I don’t bet and most certainly not when I’m sure to loose.

[BudH]

I think "isn't working at all" is an overbid.

 

Most of the time it's not that hard determining comparable calls. It seems difficult here because we only have threads about the tricky cases. These are the exceptions, not the norm.

Much of the original problems that occurred when the new laws began to be used was in determining what information offender's LHO is allowed to have before deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid or call out of rotation.

 

Finally, we now have some guidance that the Director does not tell offender's LHO if offender has one or more calls that would keep offender's partner from being required to pass. However, offender's LHO can ask offender's partner questions about their system to help him guess the intended meaning of the illegal call to help him decide whether to accept it.

 

(By the way, I've found that offender's LHO often should accept the illegal call so that offender's partner is often at a guess at what offender was trying to do. If he doesn't accept it, offender often gets to clear up the ambiguity.)

[gordontd]

(By the way, I've found that offender's LHO often should accept the illegal call so that offender's partner is often at a guess at what offender was trying to do. If he doesn't accept it, offender often gets to clear up the ambiguity.)

I've always been a big fan of accepting Insufficient bids.

[Cyberyeti]

I've always been a big fan of accepting Insufficient bids.

 

Is it legal to have the arrangement that if you accept and X it's takeout, if you don't and double the same denomination one up it's penalties regardless of what the double would normally mean ?

[gordontd]

Is it legal to have the arrangement that if you accept and X it's takeout, if you don't and double the same denomination one up it's penalties regardless of what the double would normally mean ?

 

LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS

B. Special Partnership Understandings

2. (a) The Regulating Authority:

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a

partnership to vary its understandings

during the auction or play following an

irregularity committed by the opponents.

 

 

EBU White Book 1.6.4 Law book options

Certain laws have Regulating Authority options. Those applicable to EBU events are:

 

(d) Under Law 40B2 (a) (iv), a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its

understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity

committed by the opponents.

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks Gordon, so as I understand you the answer is yes in EBUland but may vary elsewhere.

[gordontd]

Thanks Gordon, so as I understand you the answer is yes in EBUland but may vary elsewhere.

Exactly.

[barmar]

Thanks Gordon, so as I understand you the answer is yes in EBUland but may vary elsewhere.

In ACBL it's not legal.

ACBL OPTIONS UNDER THE LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE

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.

[pescetom]

Not legal in FIGB either.

Italian Regulations

[weejonnie]

Wonder where the laws give a NBO the power to ban players from varying their calls consequent on their own irregularity.

[Vampyr]

In ACBL it's not legal.

ACBL OPTIONS UNDER THE LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE

 

This is a pity, because if a situation happens and the opponents turn out to be on the same wavelength, the second time they find themselves in the same situation they will not be permitted to take any action.

 

Also they may not discuss the hand ever, either between themselves of with their friends.

 

Wonder where the laws give a NBO the power to ban players from varying their calls consequent on their own irregularity.

 

The laws used to say “any irregularity”, which covers it. Has there been a correction?

[pran]

One simple question:

(This scenario actually occurred in a masters league I directed back in 1980!

 

North bid (jumped to) 4NT which was a slightly advanced version of Blackwood at the time.

East bid 4♦ (!) and I was called.

 

My ruling was (Law 27A1 of course) that South could accept the insufficient bid and continue his auction from the (now legal) 4♦ bid.

 

Both North and South were very competent players who were able to make use of the now available extra calls and trust that they both would assign the same understanding to these extra calls without any consultation between them.

 

This was obviously a matter of varying their agreements following an opponent's irregularity and I did point out that while they were not allowed any kind of discussion between them about agreements and understandings, they were absolutely free to use these "undiscussed" calls.

 

It is still one of my brightest memories to see the twinkling in Helge Vinje's eyes (he was South) when he realized the opportunity that had been given to them on this board. (I have no idea of whether or not they eventually gained from the situation.)

 

Do I understand (for instance) ACBL correct that they consider my ruling a Director's error, and that South should not (with the confidence that North would understand him correctly) be allowed to make any use of the calls: Double, 4♥, 4♠ or 4NT in this particular situation ?

 

Such understanding by ACBL certainly makes Law 27A1 ridiculous.

[weejonnie]

This is a pity, because if a situation happens and the opponents turn out to be on the same wavelength, the second time they find themselves in the same situation they will not be permitted to take any action.

 

Also they may not discuss the hand ever, either between themselves of with their friends.

 

 

 

The laws used to say “any irregularity”, which covers it. Has there been a correction?

 

The current law 40B2(a) states

 

(iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the

auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

 

The 2007 law stated

 

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.

 

Of course for many of the irregularities, law 16B would kick in i.e. they must not know that their partner has committed an irregularity - and if they could have known at the time of the irregularity that it would damage the opponents we can adjust under 72C (this, amongst other things would stop a deliberate irregularity to change agreements, of course other laws do the same.) The fact that partner has asked a question is UI, even though the question itself and the answer to the question is AI.

[lamford]

One simple question:

(This scenario actually occurred in a masters league I directed back in 1980!

 

North bid (jumped to) 4NT which was a slightly advanced version of Blackwood at the time.

East bid 4♦ (!) and I was called.

 

My ruling was (Law 27A1 of course) that South could accept the insufficient bid and continue his auction from the (now legal) 4♦ bid.

 

Both North and South were very competent players who were able to make use of the now available extra calls and trust that they both would assign the same understanding to these extra calls without any consultation between them.

North and South are allowed to have an agreement that they play DOPI over any overcall. They are not allowed to VARY that after an insufficient bid, but the key word is VARY. In playing DOPI over any overcall, sufficient or insufficient, they are not varying it. So, they are actually obliged to play DOPI here, if that is what they play over sufficient bids.

 

Similarly after the auction 1S-(1H) it is permitted to have an agreement that you play negative doubles after overcalls up to, say 3S. You are not varying your agreement if you double here to show both minors - in any jurisdiction.

[blackshoe]

they must not know that their partner has committed an irregularity

They must report immediately to the Department of Mental Hygiene to have that knowledge wiped from their mind.

[pran]

North and South are allowed to have an agreement that they play DOPI over any overcall. They are not allowed to VARY that after an insufficient bid, but the key word is VARY. In playing DOPI over any overcall, sufficient or insufficient, they are not varying it. So, they are actually obliged to play DOPI here, if that is what they play over sufficient bids.

 

Similarly after the auction 1S-(1H) it is permitted to have an agreement that you play negative doubles after overcalls up to, say 3S. You are not varying your agreement if you double here to show both minors - in any jurisdiction.

So what you say is that South is not allowed to bid (for instance) 4♠?

South (Helge Vinje) was a very competent system designer and discussed many of his ideas with his partner (who incidentally was a very good friend of mine).

Helge could see what understanding of an otherwise illegal call would be natural in a situation like this had it been legal, and expect his partner to arrive at the same understanding.

(Helge Vinje became world famous for his ground breaking book in 1980: "New Ideas in Defensive Play in Bridge". Many of his ideas in that book are "standard" today.)

 

Essentially what you say is that no players are allowed to use their competence to take advantage of Law 27A1 even when they have not established any (previous) agreements for such possibilities?

 

A consequence of this view is that no player is ever allowed to make any call which must be explained as "undiscussed" in a situation where an opponent has committed an irregularity?

[pran]

[...]

Similarly after the auction 1S-(1H) it is permitted to have an agreement that you play negative doubles after overcalls up to, say 3S. You are not varying your agreement if you double here to show both minors - in any jurisdiction.

Would you allow the bid: 1♠- 1♥ - 1♠ and what understanding(s) would you accept on the 1♠ response bid?

 

(I might "naturally" use that response bid to show a normal length spade support but less than 6 HCP.)