[blml] Réf. : Re: Profit from irregularites

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************************
"Hear my words carefully.
Some are spoken not by me,
but by a man in my position."
             ~ Norman McCaig.
=====================================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd M. Zimnoch" <tzimnoch at comcast.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Réf. : Re: Profit from irregularites


> Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>> AG : They are ! This isn't conventional, but mere
>> bridge logic. The fact you allowed the OOOT means
>> you had reasons for doing so, and what else could it
>> be ? Of course, opponents will know, too.
>
> It could be something more exotic by partnership
> agreement, if that were allowed.
>
> -Todd
>
+=+  But what is a lawful basis for departing from the
meanings inscribed on the convention card?         To be
lawful would it not require, at the very least, a declaration
of method on the CC? Otherwise partner may diagnose
but the tools available to the partnership are apparently
restricted to those pre-announced.    Is that not so?
                                        ~ Grattan ~   +=+
methods