[blml] Profit from irregularities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Nigel Guthrie:

>On RGB, there is a debate about article by John Shuster, in the ACBL
>district 9 Journal, describing a convention that assigns different
>meanings to your bids, depending on whether or not you accept an
>opponent's insufficient bid.  Currently players like David Stevenson
>who believe that such agreements are legal have a considerable
>advantage.

Richard Hills:

Or a considerable disadvantage, due to the vastly increased chance of
an unforced error created by a memory lapse when a Stevensonian rare
and idiosyncratic agreement is finally deployed.

Nigel Guthrie:

[snip]

>What is the WBF position?

[snip]

>the option of accepting an insufficient bid, should be removed from
>the law-book.

Motto of the Hogwarts school:

"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus"


Season's greetings

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285

Your Rights at Work
worth voting for