[blml] Online Bridge

[Herman De Wael]

Tim West-Meads wrote:

> Steve wrote:
> 
> 
>>The key point -- which L40B tells you -- is that the 
>>improperly-disclosed call is itself illegal. 
> 
> 
> Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the 
> bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be) improperly 
> disclosed (particularly germane in cases where proper disclosure would 
> render the bid illegal under SO L40D regs).

This parenthesis is totally wrong. At least if I may draw out of it 
the specific point Tim is trying to make. Forgive me if I get this 
wrong Tim, but even if it is not your point, it is something that we 
need to distinguish clearly.

We are not talking in this thread about illegal systems. If a system 
is illegal, then the law to deal with it is L40D. It does not matter 
if the system is correctly explained or not. It does not matter 
whether the "concealment" is active or not (although that may affect 
the penalties imposed, of course). When we are talking about CPU, we 
are _NOT_ talking about illegal systems or conventions. Those can be 
dealt with.

So that being said, let us only consider legal systems.
Let's look again at what Tim says, without the parenthesis:

 > Personally I would only rule the opening bid *itself* illegal if the
 > bidder had made the call knowing it had been (or would be)improperly
 > disclosed.

So, if a player makes a call, and it is wrongly explained (or 
whatever), not only are you going to investigate whether the pair did 
this intentionally (now _this_ requires mind-reading), but you are 
also going to make your AS dependent on the result of this 
investigation? While all the while having nothing else to guide you 
but L40A and L40C? Which do not make such a distinction.

> In cases where the bidder 
> believes that the bid *will* be properly disclosed "in accordance with 
> the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" my ruling will be based 
> on damage to the NOS from the improper disclosure rather than illegality 
> of the bid itself.  If you wish you may assume I'm doing this on the 
> basis that bidder has a "reasonable expectation" that the bid will be 
> understood by opponents when his partner makes the anticipated 
> alert/announcement/explanation (or opps look at his CC).
> 
> I acknowledge that this isn't exactly what L40b says but it's an 
> approach that hasn't given me any problems (and seems a reasonable 
> interpretation of what the various disclosure regulations are trying to 
> achieve).
> 

So, Tim, you have two possible interpretations:
-mine, in which CPU and MI are the same;
-yours, in which there is some difference between the two.
And while I am using L40C to argue for mine,
you freely admit that L40B does not really support yours.
Maybe your approach is then wrong?

You say this approach has not given you any problems. Could you please 
then cite one case in which you have ruled CPU, and the ruling you 
gave, and in what way it differed from a MI L40C ruling. And please, 
in a case where the system used was not prohibited.

> Tim
> 

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be