[blml] Profit from irregularites

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************************
"The working of great institutions is mainly
the result of a vast mass of routine, petty 
malice, self interest, carelessness, and
sheer mistake. Only a residual fraction is
thought."   ( ~  Jorge A.N Ruiz de Santayana)
                   
=====================================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Profit from irregularities


> At 09:43 PM 12/6/06, Nigel wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>>I seem to remember Grattan Endicott insisting that, without 
>>specific permission, you must not employ agreements that 
>>are geared to taking advantage of irregularities by opponents. 
>>What is the WBF position?
> 
> As best I can tell, they don't seem to have one.
> 
+=+ I responded in a posting to blml earlier today. I agree that
there appears to be no statement in WBF General Conditions 
of Contest or the Systems Policy.  This being so, the Laws of 
the Game determine the question - the Director will make a 
decision using his powers under Law 81C5. 
      The EBL has no standing Conditions of Contest. For each 
tournament fresh regulations are prepared - the regulations for 
the last occasion are laid out and any updates are written in. 
For the August 2006 Teams Championships the regulations 
contained the following prohibition:

" No prior agreement is permitted by which a varied meaning 
of a call or play applies only after a question asked, a reply 
given, or an irregularity."            
                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+
<
>>and the position under local jurisdictions?
> 
> The ACBL forbids any agreements whatsoever specific to 
> actions after an opponent's irregularity.
>