[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-October-01, 15:37, said:

Are you suggesting that the law could be interpreted to prohibit different defenses to strong and weak NT, if you learn what they're playing by asking a question? I think it's clear that the law is referring to variation based on the act of asking/answering, not based on the information learned about the opponents' methods.

Pran (Post #28)says the literal interpretation is just that....However:

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-02, 06:47, said:

If you have agreements already in place -- following an irregularity or whatever -- then you do not need to vary them.

This seems to be the reasonable interpretation. We have different agreements, depending on what the opponents are playing; implementing one or the other when they finally disclose what they are playing must be in compliance with the rules ---whether the opponents commited an irregularity (such as not immediately announcing their NT range) or not, and whether we had to drag the information out of them or not.

[Vampyr]

 TimG, on 2012-October-02, 08:44, said:

No pair ever has to face an accepted insufficient bid. They can always decline to accept and then play their agreed methods.

But they are permitted by law to accept it.* So a RA that, in effect, prohibits them from accepting it has an illegal regulation. Yet the regulation is explicitly legal, so I suspect another case of the ACBL telling the rest of the Laws Commission "We're going to do it this way, so make it legal".

*(Let us not forget that refusing to accept an insufficient bid is much more dangerous nowadays than it used to be.)

[TimG]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-02, 11:02, said:

But they are permitted by law to accept it.* So a RA that, in effect, prohibits them from accepting it has an illegal regulation.

*(Let us not forget that refusing to accept an insufficient bid is much more dangerous nowadays than it used to be.)

Not preventing you from accepting it, just preventing you from having agreements after you've accepted it. And, they are welcome to regulate such "special partnership understandings".

I don't know about "more dangerous". Perhaps "less likely to be advantageous"?

[Vampyr]

 TimG, on 2012-October-02, 11:53, said:

I don't know about "more dangerous". Perhaps "less likely to be advantageous"?

Well, yes. No one actually ends up in the hospital.

[CamHenry]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-02, 11:59, said:

Well, yes. No one actually ends up in the hospital.

... and if they do, it's probably a ZT violation!

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-October-02, 06:47, said:

I think maybe. I have always had some trouble understanding what "varying" one's agreements means. If you have agreements already in place -- following an irregularity or whatever -- then you do not need to vary them.

It seems like you're interpreting "vary" to mean that at the time the irregularity/question/answer happens, the pair actively changes their existing agreements. I can't believe the lawmakers intended this. I think everyone has always understood this to refer to having varying agreements that depend on an irregularity/question/answer having occurred.

So the question then is "varying from what?" In the case of a question or answer, this is pretty simple: the agreement if everyone had been silent. It's trickier in the case of irregularities like revokes or IBs. I think it should be similar to the law regarding making an IB sufficient -- we have to compare with some similar action without the irregularity.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2012-October-03, 10:23, said:

It seems like you're interpreting "vary" to mean that at the time the irregularity/question/answer happens, the pair actively changes their existing agreements. I can't believe the lawmakers intended this. I think everyone has always understood this to refer to having varying agreements that depend on an irregularity/question/answer having occurred.

So the question then is "varying from what?" In the case of a question or answer, this is pretty simple: the agreement if everyone had been silent. It's trickier in the case of irregularities like revokes or IBs. I think it should be similar to the law regarding making an IB sufficient -- we have to compare with some similar action without the irregularity.

A very clear logic is that a partnership may not have the possibility to change their agreement in any way by anything they say to opponents or by committing some irregularity. This would of course constitute illegal communication between the partners.

It is more difficult to understand a law that literally forbids a partnership to adapt their agreements according to what they learn about opponents' agreements and methods from their declarations and answers to questions. Nor do I understand the logic if a partnership shall be denied the opportunity to take advantage provided through extra auction space because of an accepted insufficient bid.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-October-03, 14:49, said:

It is more difficult to understand a law that literally forbids a partnership to adapt their agreements according to what they learn about opponents' agreements and methods from their declarations and answers to questions. Nor do I understand the logic if a partnership shall be denied the opportunity to take advantage provided through extra auction space because of an accepted insufficient bid.

I don't believe the Lawmakers intended the clause to refer to varying agreements based on what you learn about the opponents' methods. You're allowed to have different defenses to weak and strong NT, and it makes no sense that you would only be allowed to do this if you checked the CC rather than asking the opponents the range of their NT.

I believe the law was intended to refer to varying ones agreements based on the ACT of asking or answering. E.g. you can't play different responses to your 1NT opening depending on whether the opponents ask what your range is. This is basically a consequence of the law that says that all communication between partners is in the bids and plays. While you may be able to take inferences from the opponents' questions, it shouldn't affect the communications effected by your methods.

The regulation against having methods that take advantage of the opponents irregularities is harder to justify. I stated my theory earlier: they just didn't want to open that can of worms, and deal with the extra complexity that results, since it doesn't enhance the game significantly. Surely ACBL's prohibition of Multi is more annoying than prohibiting special agreements after an opponent's IB or BOOT.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2012-October-04, 21:39, said:

I don't believe the Lawmakers intended the clause to refer to varying agreements based on what you learn about the opponents' methods. You're allowed to have different defenses to weak and strong NT, and it makes no sense that you would only be allowed to do this if you checked the CC rather than asking the opponents the range of their NT.
[...]

Precisely, but that is what Law 40B3 literally does.

Hence the suggestion that I have submitted to Grattan:

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question asked by either side, a response to a question given by own side, or any irregularity by own side.

[gnasher]

The the word "following" is confusing, because it doesn't imply that the question led to the change in the methods. The langauge is pointlessly complicated, too. I would change it to:

The Regulating Authority may prohibit agreements that depend on:
- Whether a question has been asked.
- What question was asked.
- An answer given by one's own side.
- Whether an irregularity has been committed.
- The nature of an irregularity committed.

That's five words longer than in the current laws, but a lot easier to understand. You could add "by one's own side" to some of the items, if required.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-05, 01:54, said:

The the word "following" is confusing, because it doesn't imply that the question led to the change in the methods. The langauge is pointlessly complicated, too. I would change it to:

The Regulating Authority may prohibit agreements that depend on:
- Whether a question has been asked.
- What question was asked.
- An answer given by one's own side.
- Whether an irregularity has been committed.
- The nature of an irregularity committed.

That's five words longer than in the current laws, but a lot easier to understand. You could add "by one's own side" to some of the items, if required.

"Following" as used today in Law 40B3 has exactly that implication and I do not see any problem with this.

I want "by own side" included in the clause on irregularities, a partnership should certainly not be prevented from legally enjoying favours made available by an opponent's irregularity. (e.g. the option to use extra bidding space resulting from an insufficient bid.)

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-October-04, 21:39, said:

I don't believe the Lawmakers intended the clause to refer to varying agreements based on what you learn about the opponents' methods. You're allowed to have different defenses to weak and strong NT, and it makes no sense that you would only be allowed to do this if you checked the CC rather than asking the opponents the range of their NT.

 pran, on 2012-October-05, 00:58, said:

Precisely, but that is what Law 40B3 literally does.

No, it doesn't.

Over a 1NT including a possible 17 points I play double as a minor 2-suiter. Over a 1NT that cannot be as strong as 17 points I play a double as optional [usually referred to as penalties].

That is our agreement.

Law 40C3 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.

Our agreements remain unchanged by a question and answer: they are not varied by the answer. They are always as above.

[Zelandakh]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-05, 06:17, said:

Our agreements remain unchanged by a question and answer: they are not varied by the answer. They are always as above.

The same is true for my example for dealing with IBs where the lower double is takeout and the higher double (if available) is penalty. The agreement has not changed because of the IB. And yet it has been pointed out that this is not allowed in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

Correct me if I am wrong. None of what I see in this thread suggests we shouldn't be able to do the following:

1) (1D) 1S (1H)....accept the IB and bid 2C, carrying the inference that we didn't want to have to bid 3C.

2) (1D) 1S (1H)....accept the IB and bid 2D or 3D to show an invitational spade raise or a mixed raise respectively.

In (2), above, there might be issues with accepting 1H in order to bid 2H with a meaning previously discussed; but the other bids after accepting the IB seem to be allowing us to make a call with a previously agreed meaning rather than creating a variance.

[blackshoe]

Zel, your agreement is predicated on the existence of an IB. David's agreement is not predicated on the existence (or non-existance) of a question. So your agreement is illegal in the ACBL, and David's is legal.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-October-05, 18:19
Reason for edit: To clarify to whom I was responding.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-05, 08:55, said:

Your agreement is predicated on the existence of an IB. David's agreement is not predicated on the existence (or non-existance) of a question. So your agreement is illegal in the ACBL, and David's is legal.

Referring to mine, or to Zel's?

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-October-05, 08:37, said:

The same is true for my example for dealing with IBs where the lower double is takeout and the higher double (if available) is penalty. The agreement has not changed because of the IB. And yet it has been pointed out that this is not allowed in the ACBL.

It has been asserted by some posters that this is not allowed in the ACBL. And now, it seems, you understand why that assertion was wrong.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-05, 08:57, said:

Referring to mine, or to Zel's?

You bulled your way into the thread while I was responding to Zel.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-05, 09:16, said:

You bulled your way into the thread while I was responding to Zel.

So sorry. Didn't know you were in the process of posting. You have the power and skills to fix the misunderstanding by moving me from in-between?

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-05, 09:00, said:

It has been asserted by some posters that this is not allowed in the ACBL. And now, it seems, you understand why that assertion was wrong.

You're allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether it's weak or strong.

You're not allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether it's sufficient or insufficient, because you're not allowed to vary your defense based on an irregularity.

You're not allowed to vary your defense to 1NT depending on whether you learned about the strength range from a question or by reading the CC.