[blml] 2007 Laws - RA's options.

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Grattan]

       40B3 - A pair is not allowed to vary its understandings
during the auction or playconsequent on a question asked by
either side.  A pair is allowed to vary its understandings during the
auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by
opponents to a question asked by this pair, but not consequent on
a response by this pair to a question by opponents.
      A pair is allowed by prior agreemnt to vary its understandings
during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either
side.

[Jerry]

I wonder what "vary its understandings" means here.  It seems quite
different from what Richard Hills understood it to mean.  Suppose that
my partnership understanding is that my double of 1C is takeout if 1C
was natural and it shows the majors if 1C was artificial.  1C is
alerted so I ask to find out if it is artificial or not.  Is this a
case of varying our understandings?  I am sure Richard would say it is
not, because we have the rock-solid understanding that I mentioned in
sentence two.

I would think a clearer way to state this regulation (if I understand
its intent) is to replace "its understandings" with "the meanings of
its calls", and this is the result:

      40B3 - A pair is not allowed to vary the meanings of its calls
during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by
either side.  A pair is allowed to vary the meanings of its calls during the
auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by
opponents to a question asked by this pair, but not consequent on
a response by this pair to a question by opponents.
      A pair is allowed by prior agreement to vary the meanings of its calls
during the auction or play consequent on an irregularity by either
side.

Have I improved it?  There is another reason for the changes I made:

[Law 40A2:]

Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must
arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. ...

[Jerry]

I think Law 40A2 gives me the right to ask what 1C shows and use that
to determine whether double is the best choice for my hand.
(Sometimes an alerted 1C bid is still natural.)  So I don't see the
need for "A pair is allowed to vary the meanings of its calls during
the
auction or play by prior agreement consequent on a response by
opponents to a question asked by this pair."

On the other hand, I think the quoted phrase does harm.  I was hoping
that it is still illegal to *not* ask the meaning of 1C when I want my
double to be takeout.  It seems to me that the text of the law 40B3
election would allow such nefarious tactics.

On the other hand, since the 40B3 election contains two misspellings,
it may be that Grattan did not give us the exact language that will be
used.

I still would like to know what "vary its understandings" means.

Jerry Fusselman