[blml] Profit from irregularites

[Eric Landau]

At 04:58 PM 12/11/06, Sven wrote:

>On Behalf Of Eric Landau
>
> > 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.
>
>Can someone please stick to the facts and explain in clear, understandable
>language why an opening bid out of turn that has been made legal (accepted
>by the offender's LHO) is to be treated any different from the same 
>opening
>bid in the same position except that this time the bid is made in turn?

Short answer:  Because an opening bid out of turn that has been made 
legal *is* different from the same opening bid in turn; to pretend that 
it isn't is to ignore reality.

If my LHO opens 1C in turn, my 1S overcall covers a wide range of 
hands.  If my LHO opens 1C out of turn, I can choose to either accept 
it and overcall 1S or refuse it and open 1S.  Common sense, a.k.a. 
"general bridge knowledge and experience", dictates that I will attempt 
to bifurcate the hands on which I might call 1S into those with which I 
will overcall and those with which I will open (perhaps, for example, 
choosing the overcall on a hand that meets the minimum strength 
agreement for an overcall but not for an opening bid).  My partner will 
assume, based on his own common sense, that there is a latent message 
in my choice.  Absent an agreement about the criterion I am using, my 
partner will have to guess what that message is.  But it makes no sense 
to mandate that he pretend otherwise, which could force him to make a 
totally illogical call.

A clearer example:  If I'm the dealer and my RHO opens 3H, I can accept 
it and overcall 3S, or I can reject it and open 1S (or 2S).  I will 
select the former only if I'm comfortable bidding my spades at the 
three-level.  I don't need an agreement for partner to figure that 
out.  Surely he's entitled to use the information, which derives from 
pure logic (no relevant agreement) and patently legal actions on my 
part (no UI).

And -- to return to the original topic of the thread -- regardless of 
what he guesses (about my choice) or what he does, we will thereafter 
have an implicit agreement about such situations perforce, unless he 
never sees my hand.


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