[Ant590]

Question is from EBU-land, but I'm guessing/hoping the answer is true for everywhere...

Suppose we have the following auction

2NT - pass - pass - 1♠

If dealer wishes to accept 1♠, say to attempt to play NT a level lower,

(1) is it UI or AI to her partner that she has shown a big-balanced hand?
(2) can the pair use their standard methods after a 1NT overcall, adjusting for the change of strength?
(3) is it legal to have the agreement that an acceptance of 1♠ and a pass from dealer is forcing?

[hotShot]

(1) Your bids are AI for your partner.

(3) It does not matter what you bid now, the information your partner got from 2NT is still perfectly legal for him.
I would think that you are allowed to make agreements (don't forget to alert) for such cases, but aren't these mistakes to rare to make such an agreement worthwhile?

[bluejak]

Law 40B3 said:

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.

EBU Orange book 7D1J said:

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 (.

So the answer is that it is legal to have any agreement you like after an irregularity [except as shown where the irregularity is an insufficinet bid when there is an exception] but the Laws do not make it automatic. So while oyu and your partner may have such an agreement in the EBU, it is not necessarily true in other countries.

[barmar]

(3) I'm not sure what the EBU rule is, but in ACBL you're not allowed to make agreements specifically about bidding after an infraction. So I don't think you can have special agreements about accepting the IB and then passing. However, you're still allowed to use normal bridge logic and the information that opener originally bid 2NT and responder originally passed. So if opener passes and responder then bids, opener knows that responder is responder is really weak and can pass with his 20 count if he wants.

[bluejak]

He can decide it from logic in the ACBL, so long as he does not have an agreement. In theory this gives him a difficulty with implicit agreements if it has happened two or three times before.

In many discussions over the years it has generally been agreed that the ACBL approach is unfair and pretty irresponsible where opponents' infractions are concerned. But it is a matter of regulation: see ACBL election #7.

[JoAnneM]

I don't know how many of you play in local clubs. I am a playing director in a small club. I second guessing myself on rulings that I have to make "on the fly" when I am in the middle of a hand myself. The Law book can seem like Greek when you are trying to keep the game going on schedule. Routine rulings are easy, but occasionally I need to look it up.

So, when there is a break for me I do the research and sometimes I change my mind. I even go back and talk to the players again. So I must automatically appeal all of those decisions. This may not be the proper procedure but it works for us. I hate to make a bad ruling, but we are all human, and no one complains. I always explain my decisions, any changes and why I am making them.

I also appreciate being able to post here. You are all lots of help.

[bluejak]

You do not need to "appeal" your decisions: you have the power under Law 82C to change your ruling later to the correct one.

[blackshoe]

If you're explaining the legal basis for your rulings and any changes, and telling players they can appeal, you're doing better than many.