[Trinidad]

 TrialBid, on 2015-May-07, 21:28, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2015-May-08, 02:26, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-08, 01:06, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-08, 03:55, said:

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]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-08, 11:52, said:

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]

Quote

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]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-08, 12:47, said:

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]

 m1cha, on 2015-May-08, 19:23, said:

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]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-08, 22:43, said:

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):

Quote

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.worldbrid...awscomplete.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/...cate-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-ve...e/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.bridgeweb...%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):

Quote

(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...e-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.../01-october.pdf

Quote

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.

[Vampyr]

f and h above should go without saying, and should be a matter of law, not regulation.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-09, 18:49, said:

f and h above should go without saying, and should be a matter of law, not regulation.

I think if I dug a little bit, I could find where there are laws which cover f and h.

But, spelling em out in your White Book seems like a good idea.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-09, 20:49, said:

I think if I dug a little bit, I could find where there are laws which cover f and h.

But, spelling em out in your White Book seems like a good idea.

Spelling them out in the Blue Book would be an even better idea.

Anyway f and i could in part be covered by illegal communication, but I am not sure how to deal with the issue of whether the opponents asked a question. This could be considered not part of the legal auction, but then neither are insufficient bids so...

[Shugart23]

Here's an example partner and I have done, which I gather from this discussion, might be illegal : Partner opens weak 1NT and LHO doubles her...Most opponents play the double as one of Capelletti, take-out ,penalty, shows a long suit, or 2 suits .....Depending upon the meaning of the double, I would initiate our escape sequence, make our normal bid, or sit silently...So here I am varying our agreement depending upon what the Opponents meaning of the Double is.

It sounds like I may be allowed to vary my bid, if RHO alerts the double but I can't vary my bid if I ask him what the double means....kind of an odd situation.

[ArtK78]

 Shugart23, on 2015-May-10, 04:50, said:

Here's an example partner and I have done, which I gather from this discussion, might be illegal : Partner opens weak 1NT and LHO doubles her...Most opponents play the double as one of Capelletti, take-out ,penalty, shows a long suit, or 2 suits .....Depending upon the meaning of the double, I would initiate our escape sequence, make our normal bid, or sit silently...So here I am varying our agreement depending upon what the Opponents meaning of the Double is.

It sounds like I may be allowed to vary my bid, if RHO alerts the double but I can't vary my bid if I ask him what the double means....kind of an odd situation.

Obviously, that can't be right.

[Shugart23]

who knows ? Rules is Rules even if no one understands them

[aguahombre]

 Shugart23, on 2015-May-10, 07:40, said:

who knows ? Rules is Rules even if no one understands them

Your agreement is dependent upon their agreement; it doesn't vary according to your question. It waries according to the answer you get.

[Shugart23]

A partnership, by prior agreement,may not vary its understanding during the auction ...... following a response to a question........

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2015-May-10, 08:25, said:

Your agreement is dependent upon their agreement; it doesn't vary according to your question. It waries according to the answer you get.

Isn't "answer" the same as "response"?

Quote

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, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

I agree that it obviously should be allowed to play:

• double as takeout after 1♣ - Pass - 1♥* - *   alerted, asked and with a response of "Walsh, natural, could have longer diamonds".
  
• double as showing hearts after 1♣ - Pass - 1♥* -   * alerted, asked and with a response of "T-Walsh, showing spades, could have longer diamonds".

I also think it was never the intention of the lawmakers to disallow that.

However, law 40B3 makes it possible for the RA to disallow it. To vary your agreements depending on your own question or your own response is already disallowed in so many other ways. It doesn't seem necessary to write it once more in Law 40B3. So, it is hard to understand why the lawmakers wrote Law 40B3

I think they could (and should) specifically disallow to vary your agreements depending on a question by the opponents.

I must add that the only time that I have really encountered this is in the play. Some defenders signal religiously, but stop signalling as soon as declarer asks about their carding. Some will actually start signalling the opposite "to mislead declarer". However, since they have been playing with this partner for ages, partner will know that the signals have been reversed. He will return the suit (with success) that partner just told him not to lead. And the explanation will be: "This seemed like an obvious situation to mislead declarer." I think it can't hurt to specifically disallow this practice.

Rik

[aguahombre]

The fact remains: they are not varying their agreements. Their agreement is that if the bid asked about means x, then their agreement is A. If the bid asked about means y, then their agreement is B. They are simply allowed to know what the opponent's bid means, so they can know what their own bids mean.

This is another example of people misusing a word -- "vary" or "change" --- to conjure up a problem in disclosure where none should exist. Saying we cannot use the opponents' disclosure to know what our own methods are in a particular situation is beyond silly lawyering.

Note: this is regarding Shugart's offshoot post about a different auction than the one in the OP.