[Quantumcat]

Had a relay auction a while ago where the opponents came in part way through with an insufficient bid. Our general rules on interference over a relay was pass was first step and double was second step, if the interference was three steps or less above the relay bid, otherwise we reverted to natural. The insufficient bid allowed us a gigantic amount of room which we used to find an excellent grand slam, with room to ask about 9s and 8s if we had needed to. Without the insufficient bid we might have still bid it but it would have required a slight gamble at the end once we ran out of room (not enough room to ask about a jack in a particular suit). One opponent was quite annoyed at her bottom board and grumbled that we weren't allowed to use the room given to us by her partner's insufficient bid since you are not allowed any agreements. However she didn't call the director about it (edit: still called the director about the insufficient bid, when he said "you may accept it.." I said "sure, I'll do that" and that was it). If an opponent makes an insufficient bid over our relay bid, are we allowed to use pass and double (and all the bids in between their bid and partner's relay bid) as relay steps? Or do we have to start with the next bid over partner's relay bid, same as if the opponent had passed? Thanks.

[RMB1]

See Understandings over insufficient bids. Is this in the ABF? Is there an ABF election under Law 40B3?

[gnasher]

 RMB1, on 2012-October-09, 00:58, said:

See Understandings over insufficient bids. Is this in the ABF? Is there an ABF election under Law 40B3?

Yes, there is. From http://www.abf.com.a...InRegGuid11.pdf : "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 I think this election is irrelevant in this situation.)

[RMB1]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 01:26, said:

(But I think this election is irrelevant in this situation.)

Because the partnership is not "varying its understanding"?

(I am not disagreeing, just seeking to understand)

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 01:26, said:

Yes, there is. From http://www.abf.com.a...InRegGuid11.pdf : "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 I think this election is irrelevant in this situation.)

That is an excellent regulation!
Note the specification: "by its own side" to "a response or an irregularity committed".

[gnasher]

 RMB1, on 2012-October-09, 01:47, said:

Because the partnership is not "varying its understanding"?

(I am not disagreeing, just seeking to understand)

Yes. I have different understandings in different auctions. I have one set of understandings about 1♥ (1♠), and another about 1♥ (2♣). These aren't variations: they're two different auctions, so I have two different sets of understandings. If I have a third set of understandings about 1♥ (1♣), I'm not varying my understandings, I'm forming them.

As written, the ACBL and ABF rules prevent agreements such as

1♥ (2♣) dbl = takeout

but

1♥ (2♣ corrected from 1♣) dbl = penalties

because now I really would be varying my understandings following an infraction.

[Edited after Pran pointed out what the ABF rule actually says]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-09, 02:10

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2012-October-09, 01:53, said:

That is an excellent regulation!
Note the specification: "by its own side" to "a response or an irregularity committed".

Ah, good point. The ABF regulation doesn't apply to Quantumcat's situation, because the infraction was by the opponents. So in answer to the original post, in Australia you're definitely allowed to have whatever agreements you like about using the extra space.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2012-October-09, 01:53, said:

That is an excellent regulation!
Note the specification: "by its own side" to "a response or an irregularity committed".

Not quite excellent. The "by its own side" applies only to "committed", which applies only to "irregularity". You can't commit a question.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 02:23, said:

Not quite excellent. The "by its own side" applies only to "committed", which applies only to "irregularity". You can't commit a question.

Honestly! It is possible to "commit" both a question and an answer although I agree that this is not common languange.

The regulation
"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."
contains a list of three elements:
1: a question asked,
2: a response to a question
3: an irregularity committed
and a qualifier "by its own side" to signify a further condition for when varying an understanding is prohibited.

This qualifier obviously applies to element 3 (the "closest" element), it is equally obvious that it cannot apply to element 1 or the regulation would be meaningless on this point.

So does the word "or" connect two alternative elements to both of which the qualifier applies or does it separate them to indicate that the qualifier only applies to the last ("closest") element?

Fortunately that question is immaterial for this discussion because here we discuss the situation after an irregularity.

The way I understand English grammar the relevant part of the regulation should have been written something like:

[...]following a question asked or answered, or an irregularity committed by its own side, is prohibited

if the intention is that the qualifier does not apply to response to a question.

[gnasher]

The meaning you want would be written as "a question asked, or a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side". The extra "or" allows the "by its own side" to apply to the last two elements but not to the first.

That's still ambiguous, though. To avoid that, it could be rewritten as "a question asked, or a response given or irregularity committed by its own side".

But personally I'd make it a bit longer and specify each item separately and completely. The Australian rule-makers seem to be competing with the WBFLC to cram as much material as they can into a single sentence, with as little punctuation as possible.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-October-09, 09:56

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2012-October-09, 09:39, said:

The meaning you want would be written as "a question asked, or a response to a question or an irregularity committed by its own side". The extra "or" allows the "by its own side" to apply to the last two elements but not to the first.

That's still ambiguous, though. To avoid that, it could be rewritten as "a question asked, or a response given or irregularity committed by its own side".

But personally I'd make it a bit longer and specify each item separately and completely. The Australian rule-makers seem to be competing with the WBFLC to cram as much material as they can into a single sentence, with as little punctuation as possible.

In my sugggestion to Grattan (under his law project) I wrote:

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.