[blml] Réf._:_Re:__Profit_from_irregularites

[Tim West-Meads]

Alain wrote:

> 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 :

Um, yes - that is pretty much what I said.  L40A doesn't tell us whether 
or not such calls are allowed so we must look elsewhere.
Luckily we don't have to look very far since we find L40b where the 
semantic structure "May not..unless.." is sufficient to interpret as 
"May..providing".

In the case of conventional calls there is also the possibility of 
regulation (under L40d) forbidding (or indeed mandating) certain usage.  

My point was that only by considering L40a/b/d/e in conjunction can we 
determine whether a particular usage is legal - not by any one of those 
in isolation.

L40A legalises: Bids not based on a partnership understanding and bids 
based on previously announced understandings
L40B legalises: Bids based on partnership understandings subject to an 
expectation of them being understood and/or proper disclosure (and also 
warns us that the disclosure mechanism is a matter of SO regulation).
L40D warns us that certain (otherwise legal) conventional bids may be 
restricted by SO regulation.
L40E warns us that certain pre-disclosure may be required by the SO 
(other than by pre-announcement).

Personally I don't see any sophism or particularly flawed logic in the 
above.  OK one can argue the semantic case that a bid becomes illegal if 
improperly disclosed but that goes against the spirit of L40C and the 
custom and practice in most jurisdictions (ie we do not rule "illegal 
bid" if a transfer is unalerted/unannounced but we adjust if the failure 
to disclose according to regulation may have caused damage).

Tim