[blml] Profit from irregularites

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 20:10 11/12/2006 +0000, Tim West-Meads wrote:


>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.

Isn't there written somewhere that bids based on bridge logic are *not* 
subject to disclosure ?

>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.

We recently had a conversation to the point that (2NT) pass (1NT)  2C would 
be the same as
(1NT) 2C, which is conventional (RHO being a 'smart' guy who's able to 
induce us into passing 1NT when he holds a yarborough ... bidding after LHO 
had shown 20+ and RHO 15+ would be a bad idea). Apparently, this is allowed 
in our country, but aside from this the point was : we were on the same 
wavelength because of our (unwritten) meta-agreements (when placed in an 
unusual overcalling situation, do as you would have done if RHO's bid was 
an opening bid with similar meaning). This isn't, IMOBO, a 'specific 
agreement'.

Best regards

    Alain