[blml] Profit from irregularites

[Eric Landau]

At 03:10 PM 12/11/06, twm wrote:

>Eric wrote:
> >  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.
>
>That can be true but I think the reason many of us have actual
>agreements in these situations is because we have encountered similar
>infractions and one us has said "You would have taken a double as
>penalty?", or indeed we doubled on bridge logic and discovered that
>partner was indeed on the same wavelength.  I have no doubt that such
>agreements are disclosable.
>
>There may be a small number of pairs who have actually trawled through
>their entire system and made specific adaptations for insufficient bids
>etc. but I think those are in a tiny minority compared to those who have
>had relevant 5 second conversations after an auction like 1S-(1H)-Xneg
>to the effect that awaiting a correction to 2H and doubling would now be
>for penalties.

Everything Tim writes makes sense.  It also makes total and obvious 
nonsense of any prohibition against having any such agreements.  Such 
"agreements" as those Tim describe are disclosable, regardless of 
whether they are implicit or explicit.  But implicit agreements are 
inevitable, as soon as you've encountered the situation for the first 
time -- having "doubled on bridge logic and discovered that partner was 
indeed on the same wavelength" *creates* an implicit agreement, which 
requires disclosure if the situation arises again in the future.  Once 
such an agreement has been created, it is impossible to "uncreate" it, 
regardless of what one's SO has to say about its legal status.


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