[blml] Profit from irregularites

[Nigel]

Eric Landau wrote:
> I would strongly disagree [that the laws be simplified to make such
> agreements more difficult -- for instance: the option of accepting an
> insufficient bid, should be removed from the law-book], 
> for two reasons:
> (1) It may be potentially advantageous to the NOS, which has the 
> opportunity to exercise its creativity by choosing from an expanded set 
> of available calls.  This can lead to a variety of interesting 
> possibilities, particularly where, as in the ACBL, specific agreements 
> are not permitted, and one must go with "the seat of one's pants".  I'd 
> hate to see this fascinating, if rare, opportunity to exercise pure 
> partnership bidding judgment be lost.  (I should confess that I have a 
> reputation for accepting insufficient bids far more often than most.)
>
> (2) The current law deals quite nicely with the case where the IB'er's 
> LHO just takes a call over the IB without the TD having been called 
> first for a ruling.  If you make doing so illegal, you need a whole new 
> way of coping with this not uncommon occurance.  The result may be to 
> introduce more complexity, with more "mind reading" required, than what 
> Nigel's proposed change would eliminate in the cases where the action 
> stops and the TD is called immediately.]
>   
The protagonists of conventions that depend on options available over 
opponent's infractions, are highly resistant to laws and regulations 
banning such agreements. For example, we are told that an obscure ACBL 
regulation bans such agreements but the original article appeared in an 
ACBL district magazine.

Also, some might argue that you don't always need an *agreement* to take 
advantage of an opponent's infraction. Suppose, for example: Your normal 
agreement is to play take-out doubles over pre-ements. LHO opens 3H, out 
of turn. The director tells partner his options and  he elects to accept 
the  opening bid and double.  IMO, that is likely to be penalties. Not 
by convention or agreement. Just *general bridge knowledge*. I assume 
that this is one of Eric Landau's "interesting possibilities".

IMO,  the only simple legal counter to such agreements is to remove the 
options; but  I agree with Eric: such a solution creates its own 
problems, perhaps including more director calls.

It is important that the *new edition of the laws* makes it crystal 
clear whether such conventions are legal. Otherwise, *secretary birds* 
who currently use them will continue to enjoy an advantage over other 
players who haven't considered the possibilities or regard them as 
illegal or unsporting.