[AlexJonson]

Going back to the OP, I think it absurd that a player can't ask when they know the regulations prevent an alert.

It's an imperfect world and if you don't like it, petition for transfer announcements at all levels.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-03, 09:47, said:

Also it should not say "any irregularity", because although everyone assumes it means you can have methods after the opponents' irregularities, that is not what it says.

Perhaps instead "everyone' should endeavor to read and understand what the law says, instead of making baseless assumptions.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2011-December-01, 17:37, said:

Can you name any WBF competitions which are played without screens, Paul?

Vampyr, on 2011-December-01, 20:15, said:

sorry logged in on wrong account and the question is addressed to the wrong paul as well. Doh...

Although my question was addressed to PaulG, i'm happy for it to be answered by any Paul, Stefanie or Andy.

gnasher, on 2011-December-02, 07:44, said:

Sometimes there aren't enough screens for all of the tables in the lesser events.

Can you name any WBF competitions where this has been the case?

[paulg]

paulg, on 2011-December-01, 17:05, said:

It should be alerted in Scotland and WBF competitions, as it is an artificial bid on the first round of the auction.

jallerton, on 2011-December-01, 17:37, said:

Can you name any WBF competitions which are played without screens, Paul?

My point was that the 4♥ should be alerted in WBF competitions whether there are screens or not, primarily in response to pran's comment (which was, while correct in general and possibly always in Norway, slightly misleading in this case). I could have been more verbose and clarified that all artificial calls are alerted with screens.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-December-04, 05:08, said:

Can you name any WBF competitions where this has been the case?

It certainly occurred at the Transnational Swiss Teams in Estoril in 2005. I think they also ran out of space in the playing rooms, so the lowest numbered tables were on a landing half way up the stairs.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-03, 04:40, said:

However, 40B3 is very curious:

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.

I assume that it doesn't mean what it says, but the result is that I have no idea what it means.

Perhaps a more sensible idea is to assume it means exactly what it says. Why not?

[blackshoe]

Perhaps Stephanie could explain what she believes it says.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-06, 16:50, said:

Perhaps Stephanie could explain what she believes it says.

I can see what it "says"; I just don't know what it means. Assuming no prohibition from the RA, you can vary your agreements if a question is asked and/or an answer received. So you can change your agreements if the opponents ask a question. And if partner does as well; this may be prohibited by Law 73, but then 40 could have been written a lot more clearly. I am not quite sure, as I mentioned earlier, what the practical value of different agreements depending on whether the opponents ask a question, and it seems very complicated to implement. It seems subject to manipulation as well, as opponents can ask or not ask depending on which set of agreements will be most favourable to defend against on a particular hand. But it seems that the opponents would then be transmitting UI -- even though I am not supposed to be "aware" that my partner asked a question, I will know that he did because the opponents' system will be different from if he hadn't, so maybe he wanted them to play the new system... but maybe the opponents will change back if I ask a question... like I said, it's complicated. Also such a set of agreements would be impossible to play when screens are in use, as both members of a partnership cannot know whether a question has been asked.

And then about irregularities -- the Law says that you can have agreements over them. Including, there is no reason to assume otherwise -- your own. It just seems wrong to me for a pair to have agreements about what to do after partner has done something illegal. If, for example, I bid 1♠ and partner responds 1♠, I don't think I should be able to take advantage of the extra room. If I do, we may profit from making an insufficient bid.

Will I lose a good result through L23? So I can keep only poor results from my "varied" agreements? Then what is the point of letting me have them, because I never will.

So if the Law says what it means then it means the above. I am reluctant to believe this.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I see your point, it does seem a strange law.

The problem you pose doesn't exist in North America, because the ACBL has elected to prohibit all those things. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the law is there because the ACBL wanted to have explicit authority for the prohibition. Other RAs (in particular the WBF) may feel that the provisions of other laws are sufficient to discourage the practice, as you suggest. I don't know. But I agree with David on one point: until we are told by the WBFLC that this law means something other than what it says, we must treat it as meaning what it says. IOW, it means "Unless prohibited by the RA, a pair may vary its agreements on the basis of questions asked by either side, answers given by either side, or irregularities committed by either side". A caveat that use or adoption of such agreements may be affected by other laws would be nice, but that's not in this law.

Just found this in the OB:

Quote

7D1:(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.
(j) 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).

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-December-07, 08:43
Reason for edit: add info from the Orange Book

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-07, 07:53, said:

But I agree with David on one point: until we are told by the WBFLC that this law means something other than what it says, we must treat it as meaning what it says.

Does that apply to all of the laws?

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-07, 07:53, said:

IOW, it means "Unless prohibited by the RA, a pair may vary its agreements on the basis of questions asked by either side, answers given by either side, or irregularities committed by either side".

No, it doesn't. Law 40B3 gives the RA the power to disallow these things. It does not give the RA the power to allow them; contrast the wording with law 40B2a. If the RA does not disallow them then that does not stop them being prohibited by other laws in certain circumstances.

My local council has the power to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in certain public spaces. Even when no such prohibition is made, though, underage drinking is illegal.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-December-07, 10:46, said:

Does that apply to all of the laws?

Very good question. From one who often argues that the laws should mean what they say rather than some unwritten interpretation about how they have always been interpreted.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2011-December-07, 10:48, said:

No, it doesn't. Law 40B3 gives the RA the power to disallow these things. It does not give the RA the power to allow them; contrast the wording with law 40B2a. If the RA does not disallow them then that does not stop them being prohibited by other laws in certain circumstances.

I said as much, did I not? They are allowed except when prohibited by another law.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-December-07, 10:46, said:

Does that apply to all of the laws?

I would be much happier if all the laws meant exactly what they say, but the fact is they don't. "From amongst logical alternatives" comes to mind.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-07, 07:53, said:

Just found this in the OB:

I have long wondered whether the Law waht intended to mean what it does with the addition of the EBU regulation. But then that's what it would have said...

[mycroft]

I can see why the RA might want to prohibit having agreements triggered by questions from the opponents. How about "we play splinters and first-round cuebidding until they ask about it, after which we play one-under splinters and first-and-second"? or "we have agreed to play wildly aggressive preeempts unless they ask about style, at which point we tighten up to 2/3"? I'm sure nobody would do it, except for "those people", but "those people" sure exist...

I do have trouble with "can't have agreements after opponent's irregularities" because it's almost impossible to *not have* at least implicit agreements in the obvious cases - like when one would agree to an IB, especially in order to "raise" to opener's level. But them are the regs (at least over here), and I live with 'em.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-06, 20:20, said:

I can see what it "says"; I just don't know what it means. Assuming no prohibition from the RA, you can vary your agreements if a question is asked and/or an answer received. So you can change your agreements if the opponents ask a question. And if partner does as well; this may be prohibited by Law 73, but then 40 could have been written a lot more clearly. I am not quite sure, as I mentioned earlier, what the practical value of different agreements depending on whether the opponents ask a question, and it seems very complicated to implement. It seems subject to manipulation as well, as opponents can ask or not ask depending on which set of agreements will be most favourable to defend against on a particular hand. But it seems that the opponents would then be transmitting UI -- even though I am not supposed to be "aware" that my partner asked a question, I will know that he did because the opponents' system will be different from if he hadn't, so maybe he wanted them to play the new system... but maybe the opponents will change back if I ask a question... like I said, it's complicated. Also such a set of agreements would be impossible to play when screens are in use, as both members of a partnership cannot know whether a question has been asked.

And then about irregularities -- the Law says that you can have agreements over them. Including, there is no reason to assume otherwise -- your own. It just seems wrong to me for a pair to have agreements about what to do after partner has done something illegal. If, for example, I bid 1♠ and partner responds 1♠, I don't think I should be able to take advantage of the extra room. If I do, we may profit from making an insufficient bid.

Will I lose a good result through L23? So I can keep only poor results from my "varied" agreements? Then what is the point of letting me have them, because I never will.

So if the Law says what it means then it means the above. I am reluctant to believe this.

If what you are saying is that it is a Law likely to cause trouble with incompetent and lazy RAs, sure, big deal. But that is hardly a reason to assume the Law does not say what it means.

What it basically says is that certain things may be decided by the RA. It seems strange to me to assume there is anything wrong with this.

Some allowances and/or prohibitions are far more obvious than others. Sure, but so? That hardly makes the Law wrong.

It seems a perfectly good Law to me with a completely obvious meaning. I still completely fail to understand the objections to it.