[Cyberyeti]

Your partner opens 1N, the next hand overcalls 2♥(nat) which you fail to see and you bid 2♣ stayman.

At this point you point out that 3♥ (staymanic, 4♠ with a ♥ stop) is a more precise version of the 2♣ bid you wanted to make, and that you should be able to correct it.

As the alternative 2N bid is not legal, as it contains hands you would not bid 2♣ with:

A) is it legitimate to semi psyche 3♥ with no stop to avoid the silencing penalty

B) is it legitimate to have the agreement to do so in this sort of situation

[McBruce]

In my opinion: yes to both, and a failing grade to a TD who gives away the psyche by the manner in which he deals with the situation. You're allowed to depart from your agreements; you're allowed to take the most advantageous option when you have options; all of this is authorized information to partner and opponents, so nobody has an advantage. It's AI to everyone that you have restricted options and that because of this, your choice may not quite conform to system.

However, if the psyche/semi-psyche qualifies as "assistance gained from the infraction" and gets you a better score, the TD will apply Law 27D and adjust the score.

Also, if you consistently choose the same type of option in similar situations and have an understanding, like "we may make a bid that promises a stopper without one when restricted by Law 27" this is an agreement that the opponents are entitled to.

[gordontd]

Max Bavin presented a paper to the EBL TDs' seminar and then later to EBU tournament directors, in advance of the 2007 laws coming into force, which said in part:

Quote

Laws 27B1a and 27B1b work on the assumption that when the IB-er selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually conforms to the newly selected bid.

However, this will not necessarily be the case.  For example, it may make perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the auction open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which silences partner.

It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that the IB-er may be ‘misbidding’, and to cater for (‘field’) this possibility.

All this is entirely legal – it is general bridge knowledge covered by Law 16A1(d).

This is why Law 27D exists.  If the player does misbid, or if his partner attempts to cater for it (regardless of whether there has been an actual misbid or not), then Law 27D may apply.

[mjj29]

McBruce, on Aug 12 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

Also, if you consistently choose the same type of option in similar situations and have an understanding, like "we may make a bid that promises a stopper without one when restricted by Law 27" this is an agreement that the opponents are entitled to.

And that understanding may be illegal in some jurisdictions (it's an RA option whether to allow system changes after an irregularity). In the EBU, for example, the option is:

OB7D1(j) 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(b ).

[barmar]

So you can't have an agreement to do what general bridge knowledge says you practically MUST do? 27D isn't enough to deal with this?

[bluejak]

If you cannot have an agreemenrt under the regulations of your RA then you cannot have an agreement. Seems simple enough. If you do not approve of those regulations, go argue with your RA.

But why do you want or need an agreement if it is general bridge knowledge?

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Aug 13 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

If you cannot have an agreemenrt under the regulations of your RA then you cannot have an agreement. Seems simple enough. If you do not approve of those regulations, go argue with your RA.

But why do you want or need an agreement if it is general bridge knowledge?

Bit of a philosophic question I suppose, but where do you draw the line between what is an agreement and what is "general bridge knowledge" in situations like this?

Nick

[bluejak]

It's a judgement, like so many other TD rulings. If players have not discussed it but both follow it because they think it obvious, that's ok.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on Aug 13 2009, 05:12 AM, said:

So you can't have an agreement to do what general bridge knowledge says you practically MUST do? 27D isn't enough to deal with this?

You aren't allowed to have an agreement along the lines of:

"If RHO bids, and I make an insufficient bid, then our partnership agreement is that the lowest sufficient call (excluding pass) now means exactly what the insufficient bid would have meant had RHO passed"

This would allow us to benefit hugely from making insufficient bids on purpose e.g.

2NT (3S) 3D, oops, but our agreement means I can change this to double, showing 5+ hearts...

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Aug 13 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

It's a judgement, like so many other TD rulings.  If players have not discussed it but both follow it because they think it obvious, that's ok.

In order to be general bridge knowledge it must be obvious not only to them, but also to their opponents!

When a situation that I have never discussed with my partner occurs and I select a particular action (call) trusting that he will understand it correctly because I know that he has read the same book from where I have the idea, or because this understanding is common knowledge in the club we both attend, then this understanding is still a (special) partnership understanding and not general bridge knowledge unless I can feel sure that my opponents have a similar background.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

No, not necessarily. An expert knows more about bridge than a novice. If something is clear to 75% of players in a competition, the fact that it may not be clear to the specific opponents does not stop it being general bridge knoledge.

It would be impractical otherwise: you cannot find out your opponent's level of expertise before making decisions which you cannot discuss with partner.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 13 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

This would allow us to benefit hugely from making insufficient bids on purpose e.g.

Except that you're explicitly prohibited from making any irregularity on purpose. But I guess the prohibition against special agreements after irregularities means that it's harder to profit even if they don't catch you.

[Bende]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 13 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 13 2009, 05:12 AM, said:

So you can't have an agreement to do what general bridge knowledge says you practically MUST do?  27D isn't enough to deal with this?

You aren't allowed to have an agreement along the lines of:

"If RHO bids, and I make an insufficient bid, then our partnership agreement is that the lowest sufficient call (excluding pass) now means exactly what the insufficient bid would have meant had RHO passed"

This would allow us to benefit hugely from making insufficient bids on purpose e.g.

2NT (3S) 3D, oops, but our agreement means I can change this to double, showing 5+ hearts...

Is this really correct?

In Ton Kooijman's commentary to the 2007 laws (link) he says regarding law 40:

Quote

The regulating authority has now more opportunities to control partnership agreements; it may define special partnership understandings and regulate (also forbid) their use. It also may restrict the use of any psychic artificial call.

An interesting possibility is described in B3: disallowing anticipation in the system (varying the agreements) in case of questions asked, answers given or irregularities occurring. With the new Law 27 a pair could, for example, decide to use a double as the substituted call in the case of any insufficient bid, and give this double the same meaning as the insufficient bid! That would result in the auction’s continuing normally. The regulating authority has the power to prevent such ‘clever solutions’.

At least in Sweden, the RA has not added any regulation preventing these agreements. What about in the UK or the ACBL?

Edit: Of course, making insufficient bids on purpose would still be illegal, but I think it is an interesting point if the agreements above are allowed.

[bluejak]

EBU Orange book said:

7 D 1 Certain Laws have Regulating Authority options. Those applicable to EBU events are:

(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 27B1B.

[blackshoe]

ACBL Elections said:

7. Law 40B3: 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.