[blml] Réf. : Re: Profit from irregularites

[Alain Gottcheiner]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
..........
> L40A isn't relevant - in the sense that if we only ever apply Law40A it
> would be illegal to respond 2H to 1N showing spades if one had a
> partnership understanding that it showed spades.
>
> If one reads Law40A with the bracketed clause removed "A player may make
> any call or play, without prior announcement, provided that such call or
> play is not based on a partnership understanding."  It is relatively
> easy to see that no permission is granted for any call based on a
> partnership understanding.
 
This is a classical sophism, an error in using elementary logic.
 
Just because they took trouble to say "any call is allowed if not based on
partnership understanding", it doesn't follow that "no call is allowed if
based on partnership understanding", but merely that "in other cases, i.e.
when based on partnership understanding, it is not automatically allowed :
it is possible that some / any / all calls might be disallowed".
And of course that's how we handle it : some understandings are indeed
disallowed by several authorities. Possibly "all" in some tournaments
(individuals).
 
Regards
 
   Alain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061212/93ab12f6/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061212/93ab12f6/attachment-0001.jpeg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 37976 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20061212/93ab12f6/attachment-0001.gif