[blml] Profit from irregularites

[Eric Landau]

At 12:52 PM 12/9/06, Sven wrote:

> > On Behalf Of Nigel
>.............
> > 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".
>
>The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted this
>opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were legal; that 
>is as
>if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements on doubles over 
>pre-empts
>obviously apply, and if you have any other understanding with your partner
>on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership
>understanding.

That misses Nigel's point entirely.  Sven says that "your agreements... 
obviously apply", but Nigel is talking about cases where common, 
ordinary bridge logic tells you that your agreements obviously cannot 
apply and still make sense, without the need for "any other 
understanding".  So you do what makes sense in the context of the hand, 
"not by convention or agreement[;] just *general bridge knowledge*", 
and hope your partner's application of "general bridge knowledge" more 
or less parallels your own.  You cannot have a "concealed partnership 
agreement" without having a partnership agreement.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607