Comparable Call

[Vampyr]

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.)

 

This is probably pretty standard but is presumably illegal in the ACBL.

[barmar]

This is probably pretty standard but is presumably illegal in the ACBL.

It depends on what you consider the normal agreement to be.

 

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level, then the second 1♠ would fit that definition, so it should have the same meaning as in a normal 1♠-(2♥)-2♠ auction.

 

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level higher than partner's bid, then you would have to bid 2♠ to show 6-10 (even though this is now a jump), and this 1♠ doesn't have a normal meaning. If there's no normal agreement, is there something to "vary"?

 

I wonder if this is really the kind of thing they were thinking of when they wrote that Law. I suspect they were really thinking about conventional bids, like you can't agree to play that Bergen Raises are off after an irregularity. I don't think they wanted to prohibit use of bridge logic, or being able to come up with the same improvisation repeatedly because partner might remember the last time.

[pran]

It depends on what you consider the normal agreement to be.

 

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level, then the second 1♠ would fit that definition, so it should have the same meaning as in a normal 1♠-(2♥)-2♠ auction.

 

If you define a normal raise as bidding partner's suit at the cheapest legal level higher than partner's bid, then you would have to bid 2♠ to show 6-10 (even though this is now a jump), and this 1♠ doesn't have a normal meaning. If there's no normal agreement, is there something to "vary"?

 

I wonder if this is really the kind of thing they were thinking of when they wrote that Law. I suspect they were really thinking about conventional bids, like you can't agree to play that Bergen Raises are off after an irregularity. I don't think they wanted to prohibit use of bridge logic, or being able to come up with the same improvisation repeatedly because partner might remember the last time.

I typically "reserve" the "raise" (1S - 1H - 1S) to show a hand that would have been passed under normal circumstances, but uses the "extra" bid made available to show a limited support to partner's opening bid. Frankly I believe this is standard without any previous agreement and immediately understood by any player.

 

From what we learned in 1980, and substantiated by the EBL commentary in 1992 to the 1987 laws, I understand that the purpose of Law 27A1 was to give the non-offending side the benefit of having more bidding space at the cost of waving any penalty to the offending side.

 

Prohibiting agreements to be varied as a result of your own actions makes sense whether such actions are irregularities, or information given (e.g. in reply to questions from opponents).

 

It makes no sense to prohibit varying agreements as a result of opponents' irregularities, or information received (e.g. in reply to questions to opponents).

 

I may obviously have every reason to vary my agreements depending on explanations given by opponents.

[sanst]

With my partner I have the agreement that we don’t accept a BOOT or IB if we would pass when accepting it. Is this agreement allowed or not and is this dependent on the jurisdiction?

[lamford]

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.)

Yes I would allow it. Law 40A3 states:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

 

I would allow, in the EBU, any discussed (and disclosed) agreement. In other jursidictions I would allow this to be a minimum spade raise, which is not varying the agreement from the legal auction 1S-(2H)-2S which is a minimum spade raise.

 

But I think we are moving away from comparable calls ...

[pran]

Yes I would allow it. Law 40A3 states:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

 

I would allow, in the EBU, any discussed (and disclosed) agreement. In other jursidictions I would allow this to be a minimum spade raise, which is not varying the agreement from the legal auction 1S-(2H)-2S which is a minimum spade raise.

 

But I think we are moving away from comparable calls ...

We are indeed - the real question here is: What exactly is meant by "varying" agreements and when (if ever) is such varying illegal after an irregularity by an opponent during the auction?

[barmar]

We are indeed - the real question here is: What exactly is meant by "varying" agreements and when (if ever) is such varying illegal after an irregularity by an opponent during the auction?

That's essentially the point I was trying to make.

 

If you have an agreement about an artificial bid like Bergen Raises, "varying" would include things like switching from Reverse Bergen to normal Bergen, or dropping the agreement after an irregularity.

 

It's unclear what this means when accepting an IB gives you a range of bids that would never be possible in a normal auction. You don't normally have agreements about those bids, so you can't really vary them. And the extra level of bidding also clearly allows for different meanings of the bids on the next level.