Vampyr Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 f and h above should go without saying, and should be a matter of law, not regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 f and h above should go without saying, and should be a matter of law, not regulation.I think if I dug a little bit, I could find where there are laws which cover f and h. But, spelling em out in your White Book seems like a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 I think if I dug a little bit, I could find where there are laws which cover f and h. But, spelling em out in your White Book seems like a good idea. Spelling them out in the Blue Book would be an even better idea. Anyway f and i could in part be covered by illegal communication, but I am not sure how to deal with the issue of whether the opponents asked a question. This could be considered not part of the legal auction, but then neither are insufficient bids so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shugart23 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Here's an example partner and I have done, which I gather from this discussion, might be illegal : Partner opens weak 1NT and LHO doubles her...Most opponents play the double as one of Capelletti, take-out ,penalty, shows a long suit, or 2 suits .....Depending upon the meaning of the double, I would initiate our escape sequence, make our normal bid, or sit silently...So here I am varying our agreement depending upon what the Opponents meaning of the Double is. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Here's an example partner and I have done, which I gather from this discussion, might be illegal : Partner opens weak 1NT and LHO doubles her...Most opponents play the double as one of Capelletti, take-out ,penalty, shows a long suit, or 2 suits .....Depending upon the meaning of the double, I would initiate our escape sequence, make our normal bid, or sit silently...So here I am varying our agreement depending upon what the Opponents meaning of the Double is. 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.Obviously, that can't be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shugart23 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 who knows ? Rules is Rules even if no one understands them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 who knows ? Rules is Rules even if no one understands themYour agreement is dependent upon their agreement; it doesn't vary according to your question. It waries according to the answer you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shugart23 Posted May 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 A partnership, by prior agreement,may not vary its understanding during the auction ...... following a response to a question........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Your agreement is dependent upon their agreement; it doesn't vary according to your question. It waries according to the answer you get.Isn't "answer" the same as "response"? Law 40B3. 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. I agree that it obviously should be allowed to play:double as takeout after 1♣ - Pass - 1♥* - * alerted, asked and with a response of "Walsh, natural, could have longer diamonds".double as showing hearts after 1♣ - Pass - 1♥* - * alerted, asked and with a response of "T-Walsh, showing spades, could have longer diamonds". I also think it was never the intention of the lawmakers to disallow that. However, law 40B3 makes it possible for the RA to disallow it. To vary your agreements depending on your own question or your own response is already disallowed in so many other ways. It doesn't seem necessary to write it once more in Law 40B3. So, it is hard to understand why the lawmakers wrote Law 40B3 I think they could (and should) specifically disallow to vary your agreements depending on a question by the opponents. I must add that the only time that I have really encountered this is in the play. Some defenders signal religiously, but stop signalling as soon as declarer asks about their carding. Some will actually start signalling the opposite "to mislead declarer". However, since they have been playing with this partner for ages, partner will know that the signals have been reversed. He will return the suit (with success) that partner just told him not to lead. And the explanation will be: "This seemed like an obvious situation to mislead declarer." I think it can't hurt to specifically disallow this practice. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 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 questionI 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 questionWe 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: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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 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? RikI 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Maybe a better example would be 2♠-(pass)-3♠- preemptive if they asked what the 2♠ opening meant- invititational if they didn't ask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Maybe a better example would be 2♠-(pass)-3♠- preemptive if they asked what the 2♠ opening meant- invititational if they didn't askYeah, 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.