[Mbodell]

So is the fact that the opponents have made a bid out of turn and that we may be lying/stretching to punish them AI for our partner. Similarly, would we be able to modify our agreements to cater for this (in ACBL land)? Twice in the last week my LHO has opened the bidding with a bid out of turn on my deal and both times I've meekly passed which meant no penalty for the opponents. The second hand I had some ugly xxx xx KJTxx xxx and was wondering if I should open 2♦ (weak, 6+, 5-10 points) after my LHO's 1♥ bid out of turn was not accepted in an attempt to make life tough for the opponents. What about having an agreement in these situations that the cheapest weak 2 that wasn't in opponents bid out of turn suit could be a just kidding bid. I imagine that would not be legal (in ACBL), but would the general bridge understanding that we stretch to bid in such situations be justified?

[inquiry]

I take the old bridge world view that you should try to maximize the "penalty" within the limit of the laws. The point being, when this happens at other tables you are not being given a break. I will make exceptions if my opponent has some "disability" type problem that might explain the bid out of turn or the exposed card type of thing. One fellow I use to play against shook so badlly, he occassionally dropped cards. I never enforced any penalty, and I tried my best not to take advantage of what cards I had seen. Things like that.

[CSGibson]

No offense intended by this, but you would be better off coming to agreements that improve your game rather than focusing on improving your score against opponents who are already so out of it/distracted that they bid out of turn.

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on May 29 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

One fellow I use to play against shook so badlly, he occassionally dropped cards. I never enforced any penalty, and I tried my best not to take advantage of what cards I had seen. Things like that.

I agree with the general idea, but...

You don't have to call the director when there is an irregularity - as long as no one calls attention to it - but you do not have the right to enforce (or not enforce) penalties. That's the director's prerogative. Though I suspect you know that.

[FrancesHinden]

Under the new Laws, it is an option whether to allow you to have specific agreements after an opponents' irregularity.

The EBU has decided to permit such agreements, I don't know what option the ACBL has taken.

[barmar]

Even without an explicit agreement, I think you can take advantage of this. The fact that a player is barred is AI, so ordinary bridge logic suggests making things harder for his partner. And partner only needs to use bridge logic to guess that you may be stretching.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on May 30 2008, 04:02 PM, said:

Even without an explicit agreement, I think you can take advantage of this. The fact that a player is barred is AI, so ordinary bridge logic suggests making things harder for his partner. And partner only needs to use bridge logic to guess that you may be stretching.

That's partly why the EBU decided to allow explicit agreements; the alternative would lead to endless and pointless debate about whether something was an agreement (not allowed) or 'general bridge knowledge' (clearly allowed).

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on May 30 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

Under the new Laws, it is an option whether to allow you to have specific agreements after an opponents' irregularity.

The EBU has decided to permit such agreements, I don't know what option the ACBL has taken.

From the minutes of the ACBL BoD meeting in Detroit:

Quote

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.

[nige1]

Opponent's call out of turn or insufficient bid acts like a transfer. By condoning or rejecting the infraction, you usually double your options.

Over partner's 4N (RKCB) if RHO overcalls with 4♠ (insufficient), you could agree, for example ...

• If you reject RHO's 4♠ then, whether or not RHO makes his bid good, your responses promise a ♠ void in addition to the number of aces that you show.
  
• If you condone 4♠ then
  • 5 level replies are normal but deny a ♠ void
    
  • X is penalty, P is no slam interest and 4N has some other special meaning.

IMO the law is daft to allow this kind of thing. The problem arises because the law gives players options.

The problem would disappear if an illegal call (insufficient bid, call out of turn, or whatever) was cancelled; and it silenced the offender's partner for the rest of the auction; but the offender could, at his correct turn, make any legal call. Of course, if the director judges that he might have silenced his partner deliberately, the situation would be remedied. There would be no options after an illegal call. Condoning such a call would itself be an illegal call.

Exceptonally, it would still be OK for a non-offender to ask the director to waive his rights (for example against a disabled offender) provided the Samaritan took no special systemic advantage of any extra option that arose.