[blml] 40B3, etc.

[Eric Landau]

On Mar 21, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:

> Eric Landau a écrit :
>
>> That is quite true in the current context, where we are talking about
>> a partnership's actions subsequent to its own IB.  But the same
>> principles, and the same law (L40B3), apply equally to a
>> partnership's actions subsequent to an opponent's IB.  For the latter
>> to recur is closer to inevitable than to "extremely improbable", and
>> we cannot afford to ignore the questions it raises
>
> Well, apparently, our experience differs. My opponents make IBs in the
> absence of screens about 5 times a year, never in the same situation,
> and although I'm known as a systems freak and a guy who loves to be
> prepared, I never discussed with any partner what we'd do in the  
> case of
> an IB - although in two partnerships we implicitly know that "all
> meta-agreements remain", because that's what "meta-agreement" means :
> agreements which transcend specificities of the bidding sequence.
>
> No precedent, no discussion, hence no new agreement. WTP ?
>
> Of course, bridge logic does count. Allowing the 2H bid in the  
> sequence
> 2S - 1H, only to bid 2S, would most probably mean we have a low ODR.
> Else why not disallow 1H, and bid 3S over 3H ? (live case)
> But you can't call this an agreement. My partner, a clever player  
> but of
> little experience, did find this at the table. This was the second  
> time
> we played together.

Perhaps a real-life example (full disclosure: slightly modified to  
suit) from a bit ago will help.  Partner opened 2S.  RHO undercalled  
2H.  When I brought this to her attention she immediately (and  
predictably, in this environment) attempted to correct her IB to 3H  
(old law); I was having none of that, and called the director.  Over  
weak 2-bids, we play that free raises are constructive but not  
forcing, game bids are to play, and all non-game-level jump bids are  
game-forcing slam tries.  Relying on that last meta-agreement, I  
accepted the 2H undercall and jumped to 3S, hoping partner would read  
this as a game-forcing slam try.  He did, and we reached a slam that  
we would not have found without the extra help from the IB.  The  
routine post-mortem of this board during our post-session review made  
it clear (as if it wasn't already) that my intended message had been  
received and understood.

The next time we open a weak 2-bid and the opponent comes in with an  
IB (surely not "extremely improbable"), we will know with absolute  
certainty -- which we did not this first time -- that if we accept  
the IB and raise partner's opening we will hold a slam try in  
partner's suit.  Now Alain and I may want to believe that "bridge  
logic does count", at least for something, but there is absolutely no  
doubt that in the eyes of the ACBL this is a partnership agreement.   
I find it hard to argue; it sure does sound like a partnership  
agreement to me, notwithstanding that it was derived from our general  
bidding principles and ordinary "bridge logic" rather than being  
developed whole by explicit discussion.  But that doesn't wash,  
because the ACBL does not permit partnership agreements of any kind  
with respect to actions taken subsequent to an opponent's  
irregularity, which this is (absent the IB, the same call would be a  
game try rather than a game-forcing slam try).  So I now have not  
just an agreement, but an *illegal* agreement.

O, woe is me!  Here I am, brought low, revealing myself to all the  
world as a dirty law-breaker with a nasty illegal agreement in my  
cheater's arsenal of ethically tainted methods!  But what could I  
have done to avoid falling to this awful state?  What can I do to get  
out of it?  Is there no pity?  Who can help me now?


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net