[blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"Reason's whole pleasure, all the 
                               joys of sense,
 Lie in three words, health, peace, 
                          and competence."
                       -~ Alexander Pope. 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Orange Book (was L20F1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 
> Richard Hills:
<
> Since Law 75B uses the strongest word - "implicit agreements,
> which _must_ be disclosed" - it seems to me that the Orange
> Book clause 3B10, which prohibits disclosure of an implicit
> agreement created by habitual memory lapses, is a seriously
> illegal regulation.
> 
+=+ I do not think this is actually what the Orange Book states. 
The agreement, whatever it is, must be disclosed; the fact that it
has arisen from partner's memory lapses should not be disclosed. 
If the original agreement has been discarded in favour of an implicit 
agreement created by 'partnership experience' of habitual violations, 
the original agreement is null and should not be introduced; if partner 
is wayward and cannot be relied upon to follow one route rather 
than the other consistently, no effective agreement can be said to 
exist. Until the original agreement has been superseded through 
habitual violation partner's lapses take him outside of the partnership's 
clearly established agreements and there should be no mention of 
alternative possible meanings - the player must not take account of 
the possibility of his partner's failure to follow the agreement in his 
own actions. When one partner is acting upon one understanding 
and the other partner upon another no amount of disclosure of this 
will alter the opponents' rights to redress; it is not one player's 
understanding of his agreements that opponents are entitled to know, 
it is the mutual (explicit or implicit) agreement of the partnership of 
which they must be informed.  Law 75 is all about 'partnership' 
agreements and Law 40 refers to disclosure of a  'partnership' 
understanding.
       When a Director meets a situation in which one partner has
understood the meaning of a call one way and the other partner 
differently, either of these meanings (or quite possibly neither) may 
prove to be the partnership agreement. Attempts by one player  
to clear the matter up before the Director gets to them only 
complicate the situation that the Director has to deal with. His 
concerns are "does this partnership have an agreement?", "what 
is the agreement?" and "have opponents received incorrect 
information as to the agreement, or been told of an agreement 
that does not exist? - and, if so, have they been damaged thereby?"
The Laws are quite explicit in requiring players to wait until a 
specified moment to clear up misexplanations and the lawgivers 
had reasons for this; players should not be superimposing their
own opinions upon the operation of the Laws.
                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+