Law 40 B2a iv

Law 40 B2a (iv) reading through the 'Detailed notes of the 2017 Laws' I am quite puzzled to what is actually allowed and not allowed under this Law.

I would appreciate any help.

Thanks,

Marion

 

Started by MARION ARLIDGE on 08 Nov 2020 at 10:18AM

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.

Latest Posts on this Thread

  1. NICK WHITTEN08 Nov 2020 at 10:48AM

    Hi Marion

    I'm only guessing here so I invite other thoughts

    An example:
    Partner opens 1S
    RHO overcalls 1H insufficient

    Your 2S is normally 6-9 but you could have:
    Condone the IB and bid 2S is 6-7
    Not condone the IB and bid 2S is 8-9

    Note the lawbook says "the Regulation Authority MAY disallow..."
    In the absence of any explicit confirmation in the Manual (which there isn't in the 2020 NZB Manual) it can be assumed it IS allowed

    The 2S bid here should be alerted as the range is unusual 

    cheers
    Nick

    PS try posting your question about Laws 28/29 again without the / in the title (unless you have found the answer elsewhere )cool

  2. GILES HANCOCK09 Nov 2020 at 01:15PM

    and what would accepting the IB and bidding 1S mean ?  smile

     

  3. GILES HANCOCK09 Nov 2020 at 05:17PM

     NZB Manual B24 :

    Law 40B2(a)(iv)

    "Prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction
    or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity
    committed by its own side is prohibited."

     

    But it's OK if there is an irregularity by the opponents.   So if an opponent makes an insufficient bid you can have an agreement that accepting the IB shows a minimum, or a maximum; or that Double is now lead-directional; etc etc

     

  4. NICK WHITTEN09 Nov 2020 at 07:48PM

    Hi Giles

    "Prior agreement by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction
    or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity
    committed by its own side is prohibited."

    I can't think of a situation where this might happen

    If an irregularity is condoned then it becomes legal (Law 16 A 1 (a)) so the above is not applicable

    Otherwise there is usually restrictions on one (if not both) partners of the offending side so again not applicable

    The only possibility would be a situation "where the bidding (or play) continues normally"
    In which case the understandings could be altered but why bother??
    You have chosen what you believe is the most useful one so would you really want to change it to an inferior one in this situation?

    I invite anyone out there to tell me I'm missing something 

     

  5. Brad Johnston09 Nov 2020 at 11:26PM

    From the definition page at the start of the Law book, an irregularity is "a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player."

    Just because the opponents accept an irregularity, doesn't mean that it is no longer an irregularity. Just because the opponents don't accept an irregularity doesn't mean that it is no longer an irregularity. There are a few relevant laws for the general principles here (I've listed them below):



    LAW10 -ASSESSMENT OF RECTIFICATION
    C.Choice after Irregularity
    "Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit throughtheir own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).".

    Logic dictates we look at each of these:

    LAW27 –INSUFFICIENT BID

    D.Non-offending Side DamagedIf following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

    And


    LAW72 -GENERAL PRINCIPLES

    C.Awareness of Potential DamageIf the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.



    But simply put, you can't have two sets of agreements for the same auction - one with an infraction from your side and one without.

    What I mean by this is that you can't have the sequence:
    (1C) 2C
    be a cue bid, but the sequence:
    (1C) "is your 1C natural?" 2C
    be natural.

    This would be an infraction of law 73 B 1
    Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and explanations given or not given.


    Or, you can't play different systems if the auction goes:

    (1S) 1H -> 2H
    and
    (1S) 2H

    You don't get the benefit of this. Otherwise you could have a range of system notes for when you make insufficient bids, and a whole other set of agreements for when you don't.

  6. MARION ARLIDGE09 Nov 2020 at 11:29PM

    Thanks Guys, really appreciate your input.

    Thanks,

    Maron

  7. GILES HANCOCK10 Nov 2020 at 12:05PM

    Yeah, it's hard to think of serious examples given your own irregularity.   If your side's IB was accepted then you might agree in advance to play Pass as minimum, rebid as maximum, for example, which would be illegal.   If the IB is not accepted then I guess you could have an illegal agreement to make it good with invitational strength, or extra length, or whatever.   

     

    The one I've been thinking about recently is making a face-down opening lead out-of-turn, withdrawn.   A nefarious partnership could have an agreement that this means "don't lead my suit".

    Or a defender revokes and corrects, creating a major penalty card.   Agreement : I can't stop this suit.

     

  8. NICK WHITTEN10 Nov 2020 at 01:06PM

    Of course its highly illegal to deliberately infringe (Law 72B1) [that law uses the words "must not"]

    If anyone maintained they have such an agreement just in case they infringed accidentally (with no intention to ever infringe deliberately)  I would never believe them

    And they would be likely breaking Law 73B2 as well (secret agreement) and that law uses the words "gravest possible offence")

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Our Sponsors
  • Tauranga City Council
  • tourismbop.jpeg
  • TECT.jpg
  • NZB Foundation