[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
***********************
"Le congres ne marche pas, il danse"
 (The Congress makes no progress ,
  but it dances.)
                           Prince de Ligne
+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" <jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


richard.hills at immi.gov.au a écrit :
> 2007 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.
>
> Bob Geller:
>
> [snip]
>
>> EXAMPLE 1:  I open 1NT, and LHO doubles.  Partner asks the
>> meaning of the double (penalty or takeout).  We vary our
>> treatments according to the opponents answer.
>>
>> EXAMPLE 2.  I open 1NT, and LHO bids 2C.  Partner asks the
>> meaning.  We vary our treatments according to the opponents
>> answer (i.e. whether 2C shows majors, or an unspecified one
>> suiter, or ....).
>
> [snip]
>
>> But my question is, what sort of "varying one's understanding
>> according to the answer to a question" did the drafters have
>> in mind?  Can anyone provide a good example.   Thanks.

imho what they had in mind is the following:
opponent opens 1D meaning hearts.
  you don't ask and double so it's a take-out of diamonds
  you ask then double: it's a take-out of hearts

jpr

>>
>> Best,
>> Bob
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> The key issue is the phrase "vary its understandings".
>
> In both of Bob Geller's examples there are pre-existing
> alternative partnership understandings, one of which will come
> into effect dependent on which of two possibilities the
> opponents' partnership understandings are.  So there is no
> "varying" in Bob Geller's examples.
>
> In my opinion Law 40B3 talks about interrogations, not
> directly about the opponents' partnership understandings.
>
> For example, pard opens 1NT 15-18, but when his RHO overcalls
> pard chooses to conduct a lengthy enquiry about RHO's overcall,
> thus varying your understandings to state that pard actually
> has 19 hcp.
>
> For example, an opponent asks partner about your bid.  Pard
> gives an answer showing that he has completely forgotten.  You
> have a prior agreement with pard to vary your understandings
> to avoid disaster (and a prior agreement to vary your later
> explanations a la De Wael School to prevent pard having UI
> restrictions).
>
+=+ In a sense Law 40B3 is a 'belt and braces' law. If there is
a pre-announced agreement to change the meaning it is subject
to regulation in the RA's discretion under 40B2(a). If there is an
understanding, not announced, its use is in breach of Law 40A3.
The purpose of 40B3 is to be explicit and not leave the matter to
be educed from the operation of other laws.
                                           ~ G ~   +=+