What is the law on this one
DavJFlower
Consider the following sequence:
S W N E
1S 1H 1S
Logically, North's 1S spade shows a hand with spade support, but too weak to
raise to 2S.
Is it legal to have such an agreement ?
Is it legal to use the bid as showing a weak hand with spade support, without
agreement with partner ?
Dave Flower
Adam Beneschan
davjf...@aol.com (DavJFlower) wrote:
> The following occurred to me, so the following is a hypothetical
> example:
>
> Consider the following sequence:
>
> S W N E
> 1S 1H 1S
>
> Logically, North's 1S spade shows a hand with spade support, but too
> weak to raise to 2S.
>
> Is it legal to have such an agreement ?
The Laws are silent on this topic, except to say that you're allowed to
accept an insufficient bid and let the auction continue, after which the
insufficient bid is treated as legal.
The ACBL's Convention Regulations include this paragraph:
# Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's
# infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the
# fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out
# of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional.
# Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of
# rotation has been approved.
Although it talks about calls out of rotation, I believe the same
applies to other infractions including insufficient bids. However, I
don't think the exact implications of this have been fully explored.
It's generally accepted that partnership experience can constitute an
implicit agreement. So if, on a hand, the above auction comes up and it
turns out that North has a weak hand with spade support, what happens
when, on another hand in the future, West makes the same insufficient
bid? If North now bids 1S again, does he now have a weak spade hand by
"implicit agreement"? If this agreement is now illegal, does this mean
North is effectively disallowed from bidding 1S? Or from passing, since
that would (by implicit agreement) show a hand unable to make a weak
spade raise? I think the ACBL regulation here is poorly defined and not
well thought through. Which probably explains why, once, when Eric
Landau got hauled before a committee for having an illegal agreement
after an infraction, they ended up letting him "get away with it" but
warned him "not to do it again", and then refused to tell him exactly
what it was he wasn't supposed to do again. I suspect the committee
didn't know what "it" was.
> Is it legal to use the bid as showing a weak hand with spade support,
> without agreement with partner ?
Well, the Laws say you're allowed to bid 1S here, and you can certainly
make any call you want if you don't have an agreement about the call,
and give it any meaning you want and hope partner figures it out.
-- Adam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
t...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> In article <20000831092239...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> davjf...@aol.com (DavJFlower) wrote:
> > The following occurred to me, so the following is a hypothetical
> > example:
> >
> > Consider the following sequence:
> >
> > S W N E
> > 1S 1H 1S
> >
> > Logically, North's 1S spade shows a hand with spade support, but t
> oo
> > weak to raise to 2S.
> >
> > Is it legal to have such an agreement ?
>
> The Laws are silent on this topic, except to say that you're allowed
> to accept an insufficient bid and let the auction continue, after
> which the insufficient bid is treated as legal.
>
> The ACBL's Convention Regulations include this paragraph:
>
> # Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's
> # infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of
> # call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is
> # conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage
> # of a call out of rotation has been approved.
It is important to note that this restriction applies only to
*conventions*. The ACBL is not permitted to regulate natural meanings
for bids after an infraction. This does not mean that they will not
try.
BTW the last sentence in the ACBL reg is interesting. Firstly it is
not obvious (to me) that this is the case. Defensive conventions seem
to be permitted (or otherwise) based on the level of event rather than
position at the table. Of course if no conventions are approved for
use after opponents' infractions imagine the fun one could have by
deliberately passing out of turn against players with complex CCs.
Tim West-Meads
Jens Brix Christiansen
>
> The following occurred to me, so the following is a hypothetical example:
>
> Consider the following sequence:
>
> S W N E
> 1S 1H 1S
>
> Logically, North's 1S spade shows a hand with spade support, but too weak to
> raise to 2S.
>
> Is it legal to have such an agreement ?
That is debatable. My view is that the bid is legal, and the agreement
is "natural"; hence it is illegal to write regulations that forbid it.
The ACBL may not agree.
> Is it legal to use the bid as showing a weak hand with spade support, without
> agreement with partner ?
Of course. It is certainly legal to make a bid and hope that partner
figures out its meaning.
Steve Willner
<ad...@irvine.com> writes:
> The ACBL's Convention Regulations include this paragraph:
>
> # Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's
According to email from Gary Blaiss, the ACBL's chief tournament
director and liaison to the Competitions and Conventions committee,
the above regulation was repealed in the spring of 1998. (Yes, the
regulation is still on the web site, and not all ACBL TD's know the
regulation has been repealed.) Apparently the replacement is
available only in the "Tech" files distributed with ACBLscore. I
have not seen these files myself, but the new regulation has been
quoted to me as:
"A pair may not change their conventional agreements contingent upon
an opponent's irregularity. Natural methods may be altered if they
are otherwise permitted."
I confess I don't entirely understand what that means. I hope to
receive clarification from the ACBL, but I've been told it won't be
coming until after the Olympiad is over.
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)
Ed Reppert
(Steve Willner) wrote:
> Apparently the replacement is
> available only in the "Tech" files distributed with ACBLscore.
This, to my mind, is one of the biggest problem the ACBL has. Their
regulations need to be available to *everybody*, not just those who have
ACBLscore.
The program is $50 from the ACBL store if you're running a club. If
you're just a player with a streak of curiousity or who wants to see
what's in the "rules and regs" part of the program that hasn't been
disseminated elsewhere, it'll cost you 150 bucks. I declined. :-(
Sven Pran
Of course, being located in Norway I have no intention of interfering with
ACBL regulations in any way, but I must say I'm astonished by some of
the comments I have seen so far.
There appears to be (at least) two issues here:
Is the second bid of 1S legal? The answer is of course YES.
More important seems the next question: Is it legal to have partnership
agreements (understandings) on the meanings of bids (or actions at all)
after irregularities from opponents?
By actions I am thinking of something like: I will accept opponents bid if I
have this type of hand, but not if I have that type of hand. The agreement
may be purely logical, or more like an artificial convention, but in any
case
hardly makes any sense unless the purpose of the agreement is to get
selected the available alternative resulting in the best expected final
score
on the game. This is obviously within the intentions of the laws.(Law72A4)
Another example: I will for the rest of my life remember being called to a
table in the top division in a Norwegian championship where North had
made a jump bid of 4NT and East bid 4D. When explaining the alternatives
to South (Helge Vinje, I believe a player well known outside Norway) I
noticed the glimpses in his eyes when he learned the possibilities from
accepting the 4D bid. He and his partner was fully qualified to adjust their
answering conventions when given those extra 5 calls suddenly becoming
legal, and to trust each other not running into misunderstandings. (I am
still
convinced Helge learned something new on that day).
Would it be illegal in any way for Helge and his partner to make use of
their capability? Again I claim: Obviously not!
IMHO it is a fair compensation for capable players to make the best
out of the alternatives provided by the laws on any error by their
opponents at the table.
Initially it is my headache to try figuring out what partner means by
bidding 1S after I opened 1S and LHO bid 1H, but if we after one such
case discusses the principles so that we shall be prepared in case a
similar situation arises again, would that be illegal? I for one cannot
understand how this should in any way be against the laws. In fact I shall
accept an obligation to produce some explanation for my opponents (and
to TD) if the meaning of (in this case) partners bid of 1S is clear to me!
regards Sven
DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000831092239...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Sven Pran
Law 18 specifies in detail the correct procedure when making bids.
Specifically point B defines what it takes to supersede a previous
bid, and point D states that a bid that fails to supersede a previous
bid is an insufficient bid.
How can those wordings imply that an insufficient bid is legal? In
my English the word "insufficient" means incorrect in some specific
way.
Then we have Law 72B2 clearly stating (in a form which makes this
paragraph take precedence over all other paragraphs in the Laws):
"A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a
prescribed penalty he is willing to pay".
Read, and understand this paragraph and you will probably see why
I am very close to rule contempt of the game if I ever experience a
player who intentionally violates the laws of Bridge. (And the
procedural penalty for contempt IS extremely severe!)
regards Sven
Peter Gill <Gi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:wlQs5.44192$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Mike Vaughn wrote:
> >Peter Gill wrote:
> >> Here's one from yesterday's Sydney Individual Championship:
> >>
> >> Partner opens 1D, RHO bids 1D. Your go with
> >>
> >> KQ87
> >> 10
> >> 875
> >> QJ984
> >
> >> Do you
> >
> >> (1) accept 1D and bid 1S? or
> >
> >> (2) not accept 1D .... RHO (with LHO banned) bids exactly
> >> what you expect (if your brain is switched on), i.e. 1NT.
> >> Do you now pass, double, bid 2C or bid 2D? or
> >
> >> (3) accept 1D and make your own insufficient bid of 1D.
> >> After the auction 1D-1D-1D, LHO (who looks like a good sport
> >> and has already been banned from the bidding by an individual
> >> partner) is likely to accept 1D, and do his enforced pass.
> >> Partner is now well placed to rebid 1S or 1NT, right-sided,
> >> to put the strong hand on lead, which is often worth a trick.
> >
> >> My other question is: is it illegal for the third 1D bidder to do so,
> >> i.e is a deliberate tactical insufficient bid illegal?
> >
> >Without being able to cite a specific law, it surely must be illegal
> >to attempt to gain advantage by violating a Law.
> >
> >But your tactic ....
>
> It was not my tactic, I was the 1D bidder. I mean the real
> 1D bidder, i.e the first 1D bidder. Partner chose (2), not
> the best choice IMO if you think about it. RHO with diamonds
> will surely bid 1NT leaving you with a nasty problem. Partner
> did quite well to bid 2C over 1NT, terminating the auction for
> an average, NS having a 4-4 spade fit and the barred East
> having six hearts.
>
> >may fail anyway: if LHO accepts your 1D bid, isn't
> >_your_ partner now barred from the bidding?
>
> You missed the point. It was an Individual, an absolute lottery
> where you have three opponents at the table. You already have
> a fair idea of partner's hand from the two 1D bids, so barring
> him is the whole idea. Alas your 1D may be natural (a raise not
> a cue?) so you may not be able to bar your individual partner as
> easily as you want :) .
>
> The suggestion of the third (natural) 1D came up during a
> post mortem after the game. We got this far:
>
> - a deliberate revoke is prevented by Law 72B2 because
> Law 44C requires you to follow suit.
> - a deliberate call out of rotation is prevented by Law 72B2
> because Law 17C requires you to bid in clockwise rotation.
> - however Law 18, the one you would expect to ban deliberate
> insufficient bids, is structured differently as a set of definitions,
> and does not require bids to be made sufficiently.
> - Law 19 about Doubles then returns to the Law 44 and Law 17
> format and via Law 72B2 bans deliberate improper doubles.
> - we could not find a law which requires you to make a sufficient
> bid. The fact that there is a Law prohibiting bids of more than
> seven suggested inferentially that this omission may be
> deliberate, although we could not see why it should be. There
> is even a section of the Laws (Section 5) called Inadmissible
> Calls. It describes four types of Inadmissible Call but says
> nothing about Insufficient Bids. There is also a Law (72A) which
> requires bridge to "be played in strict accordance with the Laws."
> This one, coupled with the above evidence, suggested that the
> Laws must be followed, i.e. a deliberate insufficient bid must be
> allowed. Someone joked that perhaps this was to help players
> ban their partners in individuals.
> - we worked out that Law 72B2 is irrelevant because the
> insufficient bidder is not infringing any law.
> - it should be illegal to make a deliberate insufficient bid but
> we couldn't find the relevant Law. We suspected that our
> analysis has a flaw but couldn't work out what the flaw is.
>
> I suppose that if it were legal to make insufficient bids on purpose,
> then an Individual would become bedlam as everyone tried to bar
> their partner from the auction. :))
>
> Peter Gill
> Sydney.
>
>
Jens Brix Christiansen
> - it should be illegal to make a deliberate insufficient bid but
> we couldn't find the relevant Law. We suspected that our
> analysis has a flaw but couldn't work out what the flaw is.
Hmm. You seem to have a point here. The flaw is, in my opinion, in the
laws.
There is a hint in the laws, but only a hint, that an insufficient bid
is not correct procedure.
Before Law 23, a new *part* is declared: Part II, Irregularities in
Procedure. Later, before Law 27, a *section* belonging to this part is
declared: Section Three, Insufficient Bid. Of course, the headings
are not part of the laws ...
<tongue in cheek>
Now before the nitpickers among players in Denmark start analysing the
possible advantages to be had from intentional insufficient bids, you
must expect any attempts to field an intentional insufficient bid to be
appealed all the way to the NCBO. Thus provoked, we will of course rule
on the question.
</tongue in cheek>
Peter Gill
>A very long argument like how the devil reads the Bible?
Well, I avoided posting all that junk the previous time,
mainly because I had expected someone else to tell us
what Law we had overlooked. There was no devilish
intent - just two people having a discussion with the
Law book in front of them trying to find something that
didn't seem to be there.
>In my English the word "insufficient" means incorrect in
>some specific way.
If I have insufficient funds to buy something then I would like
to think that I am not incorrect in any way nor have I done
anything illegal.
When all the big guns are back from Maastricht in October,
I will post this one on BLML as it is possible that we stumbled
onto an inadvertent insufficiency in the Laws.
Peter Gill.
David Stevenson
Oh yes? What happened?
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
Posted via zfree
Web: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
Intentional insufficient bids? Is that what all the fuss is about?
How about L72B1?
--
David Stevenson <bri...@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK Posted via zfree
Maastricht now <bluej...@hotmail.com>
Web: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm
DavJFlower
>>>some specific way.
>>
No, it means not sufficient, i.e. not enough,
Dave Flower
John (MadDog) Probst
<Sven...@alcatel.no> writes
>A very long argument like how the devil reads the Bible?
>
>Law 18 specifies in detail the correct procedure when making bids.
>Specifically point B defines what it takes to supersede a previous
>bid, and point D states that a bid that fails to supersede a previous
>bid is an insufficient bid.
>How can those wordings imply that an insufficient bid is legal? In
>my English the word "insufficient" means incorrect in some specific
>way.
>Then we have Law 72B2 clearly stating (in a form which makes this
>paragraph take precedence over all other paragraphs in the Laws):
>
>"A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a
>prescribed penalty he is willing to pay".
>
"probably". cheers john
snip
--
John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947
451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk
Sven Pran
is incorrect because it is not "enough" to supersede the
previous bid. That interpretation (which I am convinced
is the intention of the laws) clearly makes an insufficient
bid an infringement of the laws, leading to the rest of my
previous statements.
regards Sven
DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000905120319...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
David desJardins
> - it should be illegal to make a deliberate insufficient bid but
> we couldn't find the relevant Law.
There are certainly plenty of indications to that effect. Law 27,
"Insufficient Bid", is listed under the heading "Irregularities in
Procedure". And a Penalty or an Assigned Adjusted Score is possible in
the case of an insufficient bid; this means that that must be an
infraction.
Finally, even if it were legal to make a deliberate insufficient bid,
one would never be permitted to gain from it, under Law 27B1b (and Law
23). So it's not clear what the point would be.
David desJardins
Harry Rich
"David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:vohvgwa...@yuban-c.math.berkeley.edu...
Law 27A explains "accepted" parenthetically as "treated as legal". The
clear implication is that an insufficient bid is not legal. But, I agree
that somewhere in defining the bidding process they should include a
requirement for a sufficient bid.
I don't think this is as gaping a hole as on the ACBL convention charts
where they define natural bids but don't actually say they're allowed, and
then go on to say that methods not specifically allowed methods are
disallowed. I guess I can handle strong hands, two suiters, and three
suiters, but with a five card major an 14 HCP I have to pass unless I'm at a
level where I can play Little Major :)
Best,
Harry Rich