[c_corgi]

Blackshoe is right that I am quibbling with the RA rather than the director, thereby being guilty of thread drift.

[mr1303]

If I rule that the agreement to open the N hand is illegal, does that mean that EW get away scot free?

[IanPayn]

VixTD, on 2012-April-16, 07:49, said:

NS are a regular partnership and play in local leagues and sometimes for the county third team-of-eight. EW have played together only once or twice before, and play only at the club.

Result: 4♥X(N)-1, EW NS -100

North was the director, and wasn't happy about East's double of 4♥ after the agreed hesitation, so he asked me to give a ruling.

How would you rule? If you require any more information, ask and I'll try to provide it.

++++Were I North I might have considered a dignified silence whilst entering the score a Logical Alternative.

[aguahombre]

c_corgi, on 2012-April-20, 05:51, said:

It seems a more appropriate test would be along the lines of: "do N/S have methods to control the effect of such an opening?", e.g. does S have methods to avoid driving 3NT with a 2155 13 count opposite this N hand, and play 2S instead? Otherwise all the regulation seems to do is inhibit N exercising judgement and punish the development of partnership understanding.

Vix got an answer from both North and South (separately asked), which makes pychic controls or North excercising judgement moot, here. The opening bid was not considered "abnormal" to either N or S. They have an agreement, therefore, putting this hand in the set of opening 1-bids, and that is illegal. Vix ruled accordingly.

[jallerton]

mr1303, on 2012-April-21, 13:59, said:

If I rule that the agreement to open the N hand is illegal, does that mean that EW get away scot free?

Not necessarily. The TD can still award a PP to East for his blatant use of UI.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-20, 13:55, said:

If a player routinely opens hands like this, we judge that this creates an implicit agreement. Then, since the agreement is illegal, we may adjust the board if the opponents were disadvantaged.

The problem is that "routinely" is never establised. "This time" is really the only instance that comes up.

[campboy]

mr1303, on 2012-April-21, 13:59, said:

If I rule that the agreement to open the N hand is illegal, does that mean that EW get away scot free?

Well, it didn't in this case, did it? EW got a UI adjustment against them; since NS got less than ave- anyway the illegal agreement made no difference to the ruling.

[aguahombre]

mr1303, on 2012-April-21, 13:59, said:

If I rule that the agreement to open the N hand is illegal, does that mean that EW get away scot free?

jallerton, on 2012-April-21, 16:18, said:

Not necessarily. The TD can still award a PP to East for his blatant use f UI.

campboy, on 2012-April-22, 03:35, said:

Well, it didn't in this case, did it? EW got a UI adjustment against them; since NS got less than ave- anyway the illegal agreement made no difference to the ruling.

I know that after an irregularity the NOS is not relieved of the obligation to play Bridge; and playing Bridge includes obeying the rules about use of UI.

What I am not sure of is this? Is there any basis on which to rule that using an illegal convention -- or making a bid which is sufficient but disallowed by the RA -- makes everything which happened after that moot?

One could argue that should be the case, but please don't tell me to move the question to "changing Laws"; I am just asking.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-22, 09:04, said:

What I am not sure of is this? Is there any basis on which to rule that using an illegal convention -- or making a bid which is sufficient but disallowed by the RA -- makes everything which happened after that moot?

I don't believe so, under the current laws.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-22, 09:04, said:

What I am not sure of is this? Is there any basis on which to rule that using an illegal convention -- or making a bid which is sufficient but disallowed by the RA -- makes everything which happened after that moot?

The laws do not specify a penalty/rectification for the use of an illegal convention. It is up to regulating authorities to regulate understandings and to provide penalties for use of understanding that do not meet the regulations. It appears legal for regulators to say that (for instance) no result is possible following the use of an illegal convention and rule 40/60 under Law 12C2a.

[blackshoe]

Sure Robin, but that doesn't answer the question. If other irregularities occur after someone uses an illegal convention, nothing in the laws tells the TD to ignore them. Rather, 81C3 tells him to deal with them, too.

[campboy]

No-one is suggesting that the TD should ignore subsequent irregularities. The effect of the regulation appears to be that subsequent irregularities are dealt with in the normal way and then any adjustment takes the place of the table score before being compared to average-minus.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-22, 12:45, said:

Sure Robin, but that doesn't answer the question. If other irregularities occur after someone uses an illegal convention, nothing in the laws tells the TD to ignore them. Rather, 81C3 tells him to deal with them, too.

campboy, on 2012-April-22, 14:17, said:

... The effect of the regulation appears to be that subsequent irregularities are dealt with in the normal way and then any adjustment takes the place of the table score before being compared to average-minus.

But only because we have a regulation. If there is a different regulation then it might tell us to ignore subsequent play on the board.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2012-April-16, 08:39, said:

Because the defence cannot take more than two spades, one heart and one club, and, as the declarer contracted for ten tricks, and scored nine, he is down only one. And if the defence continue forcing in diamonds the contract actually makes!

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?

I think it depends on what East says when asked why he doubled and his level of experience and ability.

paulg, on 2012-April-16, 09:22, said:

Yes, assuming that the 2NT bid shows 19 points. But I would love to hear East's reasons for doubling.

Of course we need to know his reasons for penalty assessment, though probably it does not matter for a UI adjustment.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-16, 09:51, said:

Need to find out what 2N is.

Was 2N forcing/alerted or normal invite ? If they've agreed to overcall on crap like this such that the fitting 19 count doesn't automatically bid game, then the double is not ridiculous with all points outside your suit. It may not be bridge, but may not be a field.

If 2N is GF and my overcall is not completely systemically off planet but mildly substandard then partner's pass is presumably forcing, now I'm in a tough spot ethically.

We tend to assume that the OP has given us all the facts [otherwise any sensible decisions here become well-nigh impossible] and he does not say that either the 2NT or the pass were alerted, so neither can be forcing.

c_corgi, on 2012-April-17, 09:19, said:

What are the critria for deciding an illegal agreement? The wording of the example in WB40.1.6* suggests that it is illegal if both partners consider it to be the correct opening bid. Here it sounds more like both partners can see why opening 1H rather than PASS might be a successful action. Is this strong enough to constitute an illegal agreement?

*pertains to opening 2C with substandard hands

If both players consider this the correct bid on this hand if it was to recur, then that is their agreement.

Vampyr, on 2012-April-17, 19:47, said:

The Orange Book could not be more confusingly arranged. It has things like:



Then sometime later:



It seems to me that the levels should be separated completely -- after all, the advent of the "Tangerine Book" for those who are unintersted in the details should mean that the Orange Book can be expanded in the service of greater clarity for those who do care. It is not available in print anymore, so it would not cost anything extra! I imagine that the new expanded Orange Book is in the works. Please confirm this, L&E members.

(If a decision has bizarrely been made not to separate out the levels, then the layout should be the opposite of what it is now -- list the permitted agreements for Level 4, and then for the other levels list the ones that are not permitted.)

Two things that everyone has always agreed on is that their method of rearrangement is better, nearly always involving making it longer, and that it shoud be shorter. No rearrangement that is longer would be accepted. Of course some people would find it easier if we put them under separate headings and repeated everything that applied. The howls of derision would be beyond belief.

I do not think reversing the order is helpful. No-one really has any problem with the Orange book once they have understood the methodology. Perhaps a better explanation of the methodology would be a good idea.

"bizarrely" is an interesting adverb to describe the view of the vast majority.

c_corgi, on 2012-April-18, 18:07, said:

Let us assume there were a match in which N/S were dealt such a hand. Both Norths thought opening 1H might be a good idea and both Souths thought it was silly. One of the pairs had a similar hand dealt previously and North had opened 1H. Is it now legal for one pair to open 1H and not the other?

The trouble with inventing scenarios is that they are generally unhelpful. Each pair has an agreement as to what to open: if a hand falls within their agreement, and the hand is not permitted by the EBU's agreement, then it is illegal.

c_corgi, on 2012-April-19, 15:25, said:

What is the thinking behind making the agreement to do it illegal, rather than the doing of it or the fielding partner doing it?

As a matter of Law agreements may be regulated, but a call made with no agreement may not.

mr1303, on 2012-April-21, 13:59, said:

If I rule that the agreement to open the N hand is illegal, does that mean that EW get away scot free?

No. When both sides are offending you can rule against each side and give non-balancing adjustments.

[c_corgi]

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 08:57, said:

As a matter of Law agreements may be regulated, but a call made with no agreement may not.

Since the definition of 'agreement' about whether the hand constitutes an opening bid is rather intangible and artificial, it seems to make more sense to define agreements based on how the auction could progress:

1. N decides to open 1H not caring that their system will constrain S into bidding as though facing a less distributional 11 count. He hopes to manipulate the auction into a sensible spot nonetheless, but if he ends up showing 6-5 in the majors then partner will really expect another card and possibly drive too high. This means that N has judged to deviate from system and should be allowed irrespective of history. S may be guilty of fielding an illgal agreement if he makes undue allowance for North's 6-5 hand being so short of HCP.

2. N opens 1H. He knows he has methods available that will enable him to show 6-9HCP with at least 5-5 in the majors at his next turn. This means means that there is an illegal agreement and 1H should not be allowed.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 08:57, said:

No rearrangement that is longer would be accepted.

Why is this? I'm not saying that my proposed rearrangement is necessarily desirable; it does seem to me, though, that more information of some description could be added to the Orange Book now that the Tangerine Book has been provided to satisfy those who want a shorter book. It seems to me that those who prefer the Orange Book to the Tangerine Book are not overly concerned with extra length.