[weejonnie]

New Law

The RA

(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 Old Law

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.

This seems to suggest that a pair may vary its understandings following a question asked or a response to a question or any irregularity committed by itself - but not the opponents. Which in theory is a huge change.

Am I missing something? I would have thought the right should be given to have prior agreements on what call should mean following e.g. an insufficient bid by opponents as more options are available.

[nige1]

New Law said:

The RA (iv) may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following an irregularity committed by the opponents.

Old Law said:

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.

weejonnie, on 2017-April-23, 05:55, said:

This seems to suggest that a pair may vary its understandings following a question asked or a response to a question or any irregularity committed by itself - but not the opponents. Which in theory is a huge change.

Am I missing something? I would have thought the right should be given to have prior agreements on what call should mean following e.g. an insufficient bid by opponents as more options are available.

The laws are hard to understand but I think weejonnie's last bit is what the new law means. For example, after an opponent's insufficient bid you might agree that calls have different meanings, depending on whether

• You bid immediately without calling the director.
• You call the director and then accept the insufficient bid.
• You call the director and don't accept the insufficient bid.

The old law seemed to allow similar system-options here but also after your own infractions -- and over questions and answers. So it was even madder.

Under the WBF law, suppose that the RA elect to forbid system-variations over infractions. IMO problems remain.

Example. It 's partner's turn to call but LHO opens 4♥. The director tells partner his options. He accepts the 4♥ call and doubles. IMO this is a penalty double, even if, in normal auctions, it would be take-out. Some argue this is an illegal agreement. Others insist it's general Bridge knowledge.

But why do law-makers add unnecessary rules that bamboozle directors and players? and delight secretary birds?

IMO, a much better rule would be to completely remove player-options after infractions. e.g.

An illegal call (for instance, insufficient bid) is cancelled and is UI to the offender's partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. Law 23 applies. No player-options. Shorter, simpler, fairer.

[blackshoe]

If a player is "silenced for the rest of the auction" then any UI he has is irrelevant since he has to pass. At least, that's what I assume you meant by "silenced" since if he actually is silenced you can't have an auction.

Why do people keep referring to "the WBF laws", as if they're different from some other entity's (the ACBL's? Walversham Bridge Club's?) laws? The laws are the same everywhere.

Quote

But why do law-makers add unnecessary rules to beat the backs of directors and players and delight secretary birds.

I sincerely doubt that the law-makers think any of the rules they promulgate are unnecessary. Nor do they make rules with those purposes.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2017-April-23, 07:09, said:

If a player is "silenced for the rest of the auction" then any UI he has is irrelevant since he has to pass. At least, that's what I assume you meant by "silenced" since if he actually is silenced you can't have an auction.

If he is forced to pass, then you can still have an auction.The UI would apply to the play.

blackshoe, on 2017-April-23, 07:09, said:

Why do people keep referring to "the WBF laws", as if they're different from some other entity's (the ACBL's? Walversham Bridge Club's?) laws? The laws are the same everywhere.

RA elections mean that the law is not the same everywhere. Local regulations mean that there is even more variation in the rules by which Bridge is played. I try to distinguish current and new laws from suggested changes.

blackshoe, on 2017-April-23, 07:09, said:

I sincerely doubt that the law-makers think any of the rules they promulgate are unnecessary. Nor do they make rules with those purposes.

OK

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-23, 05:55, said:

New Law

The RA

(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 Old Law

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.

This seems to suggest that a pair may vary its understandings following a question asked or a response to a question or any irregularity committed by itself - but not the opponents. Which in theory is a huge change.

Am I missing something? I would have thought the right should be given to have prior agreements on what call should mean following e.g. an insufficient bid by opponents as more options are available.

It is really strange. The EBU halfway chose the previous option, saying that you cannot, by prior agreement, vary your agreements after your own irregularities. Now they cannot prohibit that. Similarly, I don't think that the EBU permitted the possibility to vary your agreements by asking a question. The possibilities for this are endless. But we must devise agreements for all possible questions by both sides over every possible call if we wish to remain competitive.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2017-April-23, 06:45, said:

An illegal call (for instance, insufficient bid) is cancelled and is UI to the offender's partner, who is silenced for the rest of the auction. Law 23 may apply. No player-options. Shorter, simpler, and fairer.

I agree with you for the most part, except that you can't prohibit a player from accepting an insufficient bid or a call out of turn, because she may do it by accident.

In any case, there is no point in arguing this, because the lawmakers are obsessed, for some reason, with having a "normal" auction. Even though, very often, that ship has already sailed.

[WellSpyder]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-23, 05:55, said:

New Law

The RA

(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 Old Law

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.

This seems to suggest that a pair may vary its understandings following a question asked or a response to a question or any irregularity committed by itself - but not the opponents. Which in theory is a huge change.

Am I missing something? I would have thought the right should be given to have prior agreements on what call should mean following e.g. an insufficient bid by opponents as more options are available.

I don't think it suggests that a pair can vary its agreements following questions or its own irregulgarity. My understanding is that these things have always been illegal, and hopefully always will be. To me, it suggests that some smartass was using the old law to argue that unless the RA explictly disallowed this then it must be allowed, even though common sense would argue that it isn't allowed anyway. So they changed the wording to focus just on the one area where varying agreements is reasonable, ie following an opponent's irregularity.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2017-April-24, 03:54, said:

I don't think it suggests that a pair can vary its agreements following questions or its own irregulgarity. My understanding is that these things have always been illegal, and hopefully always will be. To me, it suggests that some smartass was using the old law to argue that unless the RA explictly disallowed this then it must be allowed, even though common sense would argue that it isn't allowed anyway. So they changed the wording to focus just on the one area where varying agreements is reasonable, ie following an opponent's irregularity.

I can accept that the questions thing would be illegal communication, but I can't see a reason not to address the issue of varying agreement after your own irregularities, especially since the old laws did seem to allow it. Common sense has nothing to do with it!

Of course there are exceptions, such as not having takeout doubles or forcing bids available when partner is silenced. Still the laws are seemingly there to tell us what is allowed and what is not. Well, common sense would suggest that it is...

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2017-April-24, 03:54, said:

I don't think it suggests that a pair can vary its agreements following questions or its own irregulgarity. My understanding is that these things have always been illegal, and hopefully always will be. To me, it suggests that some smartass was using the old law to argue that unless the RA explictly disallowed this then it must be allowed, even though common sense would argue that it isn't allowed anyway. So they changed the wording to focus just on the one area where varying agreements is reasonable, ie following an opponent's irregularity.

The old law said:

Quote

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.

Saying that the RA "may disallow" something implies that it's normally allowed -- the RA has to do something explicit to disallow it.

Are you saying that the old law was worded sloppily -- they really meant what the new law says, but forgot to limit it to opponents' irregularities/questions? And now, since nothing is said about the partnership's own irregularities, it defaults to the common sense understanding that you can't use your own irregularity/question as a communication mechanism.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2017-April-24, 09:56, said:

Saying that the RA "may disallow" something implies that it's normally allowed -- the RA has to do something explicit to disallow it.

Are you saying that the old law was worded sloppily -- they really meant what the new law says, but forgot to limit it to opponents' irregularities/questions? And now, since nothing is said about the partnership's own irregularities, it defaults to the common sense understanding that you can't use your own irregularity/question as a communication mechanism.

Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest.

As is implicit in Vampyr's comment, I think, this may be clearer with regard to asking questions than committing irregularities. But it still feels right that you cannot, for instance, solve the problem of wanting both take-out and penalty doubles available by agreeing that you use one after an irregularity and the other the rest of the time since that gives you an incentive to commit an irregularity at times.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2017-April-24, 10:03, said:

that gives you an incentive to commit an irregularity at times.

But there's another law that says you're not allowed to commit an irregularity intentionally. The rest of the laws are not written with the idea that they need to avoid incentives to commit irregularities, because this law trumps those incentives.

[Vampyr]

So what about varying agreements according to the opponents' questions?

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2017-April-23, 07:42, said:

RA elections mean that the law is not the same everywhere.

RA elections mean that RAs can choose which option in the laws they wish to implement. RA elections do not change the law itself any more than regulations do.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-April-25, 21:49, said:

RA elections mean that RAs can choose which option in the laws they wish to implement. RA elections do not change the law itself any more than regulations do.

The laws effectively incorporate elections and regulations by reference. So the totality of rules that players have to follow depend on the RA.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-April-26, 08:56, said:

The laws effectively incorporate elections and regulations by reference. So the totality of rules that players have to follow depend on the RA.

That much is true. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, though.