[skjaeran]

cardsharp, on Mar 21 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, on November 2006, said:

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

Paul

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

[barmar]

skaeran, on Mar 21 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

Perhaps it's based on Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays". An insufficient bid is not a legal call, so it's UI, and you can't have agreements on how to use UI.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on Mar 21 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

Perhaps it's based on Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays". An insufficient bid is not a legal call, so it's UI, and you can't have agreements on how to use UI.

Interesting situation. Isn't kgr's idea designed to get the auction back on track legally, whenever possible, without conveying any UI about the insufficient bidder's hand?

[jdonn]

skaeran, on Mar 21 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 21 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, on November 2006, said:

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

Paul

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

It's easy to see why.

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

I see your point. What is the rationale for disallowing agreements over an opponent's insufficient bid?

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Mar 21 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

I see your point. What is the rationale for disallowing agreements over an opponent's insufficient bid?

My only theory would be to prevent unfair collusion or a pair gaining advantage over the field. It seems like a less problematic issue to me though.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

skaeran, on Mar 21 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 21 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

I certainly don't feel like looking, but I thought it was specifically outlawed to make any agreements that are in any way related to either your side's or the opponents' insufficient bids.

True for you, but probably not for most.

There is nothing in the Laws that prevents agreements after irregularities. However the ACBL says,

ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, on November 2006, said:

Rick Beye wanted confirmation that it was illegal to have conventional agreements to handle irregularities (such as insufficient bid) by an opponent. The Commission was in unanimous agreement that this was illegal as currently regulated in the ACBL.

I believe agreements are legal in the UK.

Paul

I'm pretty sure there's a WBF LC enterpretation in a minute outlawing such agreements worldwide (under 1997 law). I don't understand WHY, but so be it.

It's easy to see why.

1NT (2♠), playing standard lebensohl you have no way to sign off in hearts and get partner to declare. Oh wait unless you "accidentally" bid 2♦ then correct it to 3♦ as a transfer! I suspect there are thousands of ways to take advantage like this. Of course it's illegal to do on purpose, but just try to prove it. So I think it's best to make this sort of agreement illegal.

Sure. It's obvious (to me) that you can't have agreement after your own sides insufficient bids (or bids out of turn etc.). But I can't see any real reason why you shouldn't be allowed such agreements after opponents such bids. You're allowed to accept such bids. It's not logical (for me) that you're not allowed to take full advantage of the situation.

[barmar]

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure". We want the game to be about normal, valid actions. Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge). Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Mar 21 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure". We want the game to be about normal, valid actions. Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge). Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

That sounds reasonable, but begs the question then why can we accept the insufficient bid to begin with?

[barmar]

jdonn, on Mar 21 2008, 09:16 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 21 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure".  We want the game to be about normal, valid actions.  Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge).  Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

That sounds reasonable, but begs the question then why can we accept the insufficient bid to begin with?

Most everything involved with infractions is some kind of compromise.

[geller]

jdonn, on Mar 22 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

barmar, on Mar 21 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

I think the reason for not allowing agreements over an opponent's infraction is to keep the game "pure".  We want the game to be about normal, valid actions.  Infractions are not supposed to be part of the game, they're necessary evils that we're stuck with because of the mechanics (although some of them can be prevented with technology, as in online bridge).  Allowing agreements over them appears to legitimize them.

That sounds reasonable, but begs the question then why can we accept the insufficient bid to begin with?

Suppose you pass over the insufficient bid without calling the director, thereby condoning it (whether deliberate or because you simply didn't notice). In this case the laws have no choice but to allow the auction to continue normally. That being the case, a player who duly calls the director after noticing the infraction shouldn't be penalized for this by being denied the right to have the option to accept the insufficient bid. At least I suppose that's why this is allowed.

-Bob

[benlessard]

Im french speaking so it seems like a lot of jumbo-mumbo for me 2.

But from what i have read. It the same rule as before excepting a very minor point.

The very small difference is here.

( if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is
corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s
opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise
meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being
fully contained within the possible meanings of the
insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further
rectification, but see D following.

So if a corrected call has a wider meaning different meaning then partner is also barred from auction.


1S----(2H)----2D (insufficient bid refused)

replaced by 3D

the meaning of 3D is fully included in 2D so bidding procced as usual.


1H----(2S)------2H (insufficient bid refused)

corrected to 4H.

Here the meaning of the 4H bid insnt fully contained within the possible meanings of the 2h bid.

For the rest its the same...

1-- you correcting an artificial bid = barring partner.

2- you correcting to an artificial bid = barring partner.

So all those case with transfer or stayman or jacoby 2nt are irrelevant.

23D is the same then 27b1.

The premature correction is the same.

[joshs]

JanM, on Mar 5 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

I think I'm a fairly smart person who understands the laws well.

And I'm totally confused...

This is definitely a confusing area, and despite a lot of effort the law is difficult to read. However, my understanding of what it means (and I think a careful reading will confirm this) is that you can change even a conventional insufficient bid to a different bid as long as the insufficient bid doesn't give your partner any information that isn't included in the sufficient bid. So, to take a simple example - I play weak NT and open 1♣ with all balanced hands in the 15-19 HCP range. Suppose that RHO opens 2♠ and I "overcall" 1♣. On it being pointed out to me that 1♣ is insufficient, and after the law is carefully explained to me, I change my bid to 2NT, which shows a balanced hand of 16-18 or so HCP. My second bid is one that was included in the hands shown by the first bid but is more precise, thus it is allowed - my partner doesn't have any information other than that provided by the 2NT bid.

On the other hand, suppose that I play 2-way Stayman over both 1NT and 2NT opening bids (OK, that's not something anyone plays, but it makes the point). Partner opens 2NT and I bid 2♦ forcing to game and asking about Majors. I am not allowed to correct this to 3♦ even though that also is forcing to game and asking about Majors because the original bid showed a better hand than the new bid and so partner knows something about my hand that is not included in the new bid.

The point is to be fair - did you ever get caught by the old rule when partner opened 2NT and you mistakenly responded 2♣ Stayman and now had no way to avoid a penalty? Yet allowing you to correct 2♣ to 3♣ wouldn't damage the opponents and would get things back to "normal." Should it matter that the bid isn't just one level higher in the same strain? For example, I play transfer responses to 1♣. A 1♦ response shows 4 or more hearts and says nothing more about the hand. If the opponent overcalls 1♦, my DBL substitutes for the 1♦ bid. The set of hands in DBL is a little smaller than those in 1♦ since I might respond 1♦ on hands that would pass over 1♣-(1♦) but there are no hands with which I would DBL but not bid 1♦ in the uncontested auction. So there is no harm done by allowing me to DBl when the 1♦ overcall is pointed out to me.

I hope that makes it clear. And I really do think that is what the law says, admittedly using more words in order to make sure it is complete. I admit my logic days are far behind me, so I can't easily discuss it in terms of sets and intersections and exclusions. But the point is that the new bid is allowed so long as the insufficient bid doesn't provide any information that is not provided by the new bid. So there have to be no hands that are included in the new bid and not in the insufficient one, since those hands would be excluded by the information provided by the insufficient bid. There can be hands that are included in the insufficient bid but not in the new bid, because then the insufficient bid doesn't clarify the new bid.

Example 1: 1C on Balanced 15-19, Then correct 1C to 2N over a 1S opener.

I think you have eliminated :
a. Hands with a 5 card spade suit
b. 4441 hands
c. 4351 hands
from the 2N bid. While not likely, it does give some information.

Example 2:
As to 2N-2C , thats insufficient someone points out, 3C auctions.
2N-3C-3S-3N
on average as a weaker hand then a hand that was bidding stayman over 1N. yes you might have a 3451 garbage stayman hand, but there is an increased likelihood of you having 8-11 points, relative to the 3-7 you might have had.

Personally, I think you should allow the 2N bid and the 3C bid, but there is possible UI in these auctions which should slightly restrict partner. For instance, I would never allow opener to bid on over 3N in the example 2 auction.

[jtfanclub]

benlessard, on Apr 1 2008, 02:46 AM, said:

So if a corrected call has a wider meaning different meaning then partner is also barred from auction.

But the silly part about this is that an insufficient call never has a meaning. Nobody has an agreement about what a 1♦ response to 1♥ means, or at least they shouldn't. Whether the person meant to open 1♦, respond 2♦ to 1♥, or respond 1♦ to 1♣ is unknown. There is no corrective bid that can possibly cover all three posibilities, since they show very different hands.

[benlessard]

I keep reading post where people talk about artificial bid being corrected to other artificial bids do they think partner isnt barred from the auction if so where did they get this idea ???

Quote

Example 2:
As to 2N-2C , thats insufficient someone points out, 3C auctions.
2N-3C-3S-3N

If 2C or 3C is stayman you are screwed partner is automatically barred.

Quote

But the silly part about this is that an insufficient call never has a meaning.

Think about

1H---(1S)----1Nt vs
1H---(2S)----2Nt

1H----(2S)---1Nt

Vs

1H----1S-----2D
1H----2S-----3D

1H----2S-----2D

In the 2nd case all hand that you are bidding 3D are hands that you can bid 2D with. So 3D is a more precise or at least included in the 2D bid. So partner isnt barred.

In the first case if 2Nt is lebensohl or 1Nt or 2nt is whatever artificial bid partner is barred.

But in the first since then 2nt bids inst included in the 1nt bid partner is also barred.

aqX
aj
XXXX
XXXX

1h---(1s)----

here everybody would bid 2Nt and this hand doesnt fall into the 1nt category.

So when it goes

1H---(2S)----1Nt
corrected to 2Nt

then we know that responder is not 11 pts & not 6-7.

[kgr]

Extract from minutes of English Bridge Union Laws and Ethics Committee
24th April 2008.

The Committee considered correspondence from Mr J W…… regarding the Regulating Authority (RA) option in new law 40B3. Following discussion the RA option in 40B3 was confirmed, however there was further discussion regarding permitted actions by the offending side following an insufficient bid. There had already been much correspondence through email and internet groups regarding the new law 27B1(B ) which allows a not accepted insufficient bid to be replaced with a legal call that has the same meaning, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.
There was a worry that some unscrupulous pairs might deliberately make insufficient bids and then try to have an agreement about replaced calls. It was agreed that was illegal under Law 72B1, but could be difficult to prove. Instead the Committee sought to apply a specific regulation making it clear the practice would not be allowed.
The Committee agreed to replace the RA option passed on December 17th 2007 with the following:
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 Law27B1(B ).
It was agreed that all RA options would be published in the Orange Book supplement along with all the other Orange Books changes.