[blackshoe]

New laws:

40B1: Partnerships must have agreements as to the meaning of all calls.
40B2: Partnerships must not have agreements as to the meaning of certain calls.

[Vampyr]

Shugart23, on 2015-May-10, 04:50, said:

It sounds like I may be allowed to vary my bid, if RHO alerts the double but I can't vary my bid if I ask him what the double means....kind of an odd situation.

What you can't have is a different agreement based on the fact that you asked.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-10, 10:40, said:

The fact remains: they are not varying their agreements. Their agreement is that if the bid asked about means x, then their agreement is A. If the bid asked about means y, then their agreement is B. They are simply allowed to know what the opponent's bid means, so they can know what their own bids mean.

This is another example of people misusing a word -- "vary" or "change" --- to conjure up a problem in disclosure where none should exist. Saying we cannot use the opponents' disclosure to know what our own methods are in a particular situation is beyond silly lawyering.

Note: this is regarding Shugart's offshoot post about a different auction than the one in the OP.

I know that and you know that.

But the fact is that this law is somehow written in the law book. It clearly isn't needed for the situation where we ask or answer a question. Those cases are covered by UI laws.

So, it must be needed for the situations where the opponents ask or answer a question. That means two cases are left:

• When the opponents ask a question
  I think it would be a very good idea to forbid a pair to vary their agreements depending on questions asked by their opponents.
  
• When the opponents answer a question
  We both agree that it would be too silly for words if you are not allowed to vary your agreements depending on the opponent's answer to your question. And I don't believe for a second that the lawmakers intended to disallow that.

But if lawmakers really intended to only forbid varying agreements depending on questions asked by opponents, then why didn't they write it like that? Why did they specifically include the possibility to forbid varying agreements depending on answers given by opponents? They could have simple left out the "response" part:

Quote

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.

Why did they put it in? What am I not seeing?

Rik

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-10, 14:59, said:

What you can't have is a different agreement based on the fact that you asked.

But you don't need law 40 for that. Law 16 and 73A already take care of it.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-10, 17:40, said:

Why did they specifically include the possibility to forbid varying agreements depending on answers given by opponents? They could have simple left out the "response" part:

Why did they put it in? What am I not seeing?

Rik

I think the part you believe should be removed refers to us varying our agreements depending on our own answers. It just happens to be included in the sentence we believe should apply only to answers given by our opponents.

[barmar]

m1cha, on 2015-May-08, 19:23, said:

For quite a while I tried in vain to figure out situations where this law would be useful and necessary. The contemplations about the meanings of "vary" and "change" finally led me on what I think is the right track. I now believe that the purpose of the law is to prevent situations such as these:

a) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E bids 3♠, pre-emptive.
b) W opens 2♠ weak two. N doubles. E asks what this means, hears the response and bids 3♠, now invitational!

This is a variation of the understanding following a question, and in order to work it needs prior agreement (and it's not a change of the understanding, by the way).

I don't think this is legal regardless of whether the RA elects to use this option. It's a violation of the Law that says that partners may only communicate via bids and plays. Questions they ask the opponents (and hence whether or not they ask a question) cannot be used to communicate between partners.

[helene_t]

Maybe a better example would be
2♠-(pass)-3♠
- preemptive if they asked what the 2♠ opening meant
- invititational if they didn't ask

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-May-11, 03:06, said:

Maybe a better example would be
2♠-(pass)-3♠
- preemptive if they asked what the 2♠ opening meant
- invititational if they didn't ask

Yeah, that's the kind of thing the prohibition is intended to address. I made sure to check whether m1cha had used an example like this before I responded.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-May-11, 03:09, said:

Yeah, that's the kind of thing the prohibition is intended to address. I made sure to check whether m1cha had used an example like this before I responded.

what I don't understand is why RAs are allowed to permit this.

[helene_t]

There is a system infamous in the Netherlands in which a call's meaning may depend on whether the opponents are wearing glasses or not. It is a bit similar, isn't it?

Also, if partner open a multi I may be more likely to make a preemptive raise (judging that p is unlikely to have a strong variant) if my RHO has showed values by asking a question. I think there could be a case for allowing partnerships to formalize this.

Probably such agreements are silly but that doesn't necesarilly mean that they should be banned.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-May-11, 04:09, said:

There is a system infamous in the Netherlands in which a call's meaning may depend on whether the opponents are wearing glasses or not. It is a bit similar, isn't it?

Also, if partner open a multi I may be more likely to make a preemptive raise (judging that p is unlikely to have a strong variant) if my RHO has showed values by asking a question. I think there could be a case for allowing partnerships to formalize this.

Probably such agreements are silly but that doesn't necesarilly mean that they should be banned.

Disclosure would be a bit awkward. Would it need to done as part of the answer to the question? Or when the bid is opened? And of course once opponents caught on they would ask every time except when you are likely to get into trouble.

I don't this should be legal but enforcement would be impossible.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-11, 03:42, said:

what I don't understand is why RAs are allowed to permit this.

Regulation of partnership understandings has traditionally been delegated to RAs. This is just another aspect of it.