[blml] 40B3, etc.

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Eric Landau a écrit :
> On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>
>   
>> Eric Landau a écrit :
>>     
>>>>> The point, of course, is that even if you make no explicit  
>>>>> agreements
>>>>> about RCs after specific IBs, you may be forced by circumstance to
>>>>> develop implicit agreements over time.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>> IBTD. The probability that a honest pair will do the same IB in the  
>> same
>> context twice in a row is pretty low.
>>     
>
> But if it is illegal to have an agreement, then you break the law  
> just by having an agreement, regardless of how low the probability of  
> your actually exercising it (and, critically, regardless of whether  
> you could have avoided it).
>   

IBTD. Very low probabilities should be discarded IRL, or you wouldn't 
dare open a can.
Before we had an implicit agreement, the same situation must happen at 
least twice. Before we could use it, a third time.
I claim that this is extremely improbable in the case of IBs, to the 
point that it probably didn't happen to any honest pair in the history 
of bridge. YMMV as to the assessment of this probabitlity, but if you 
admit that this probability is as low a I think it is, then we should 
address more imoprtant problems.

Best regards

  Alain