[blml] Online Bridge

[Adam Beneschan]

Alain wrote:
 
> Okay, I know more about Papuan languages than about BBO. 
> But it seems natural, here, to rule, not on the basis of concealed
> agreement, but rather on the basis of misinformation, that is, wrong
> information on the CC. 

It seems to me that we may have a problem with terminology and its
connotations.  I'm bringing this up because I've been involved in a
short private e-mail discussion based on this thread that seems to
revolve around this same point.

Here's my point: Despite what Alain said, I do not see any legal
difference between "concealed agreement" (or concealed partnership
understanding) and "misinformation".  If I've been given
misinformation about the opponents' agreements, then their actual
agreement is concealed from me.  (This is *not* the same thing as
saying "somebody has concealed their agreement from me".)  The Laws do
not speak about "concealed understanding" and "misinformation" as
being two different things.  Misinformation is handled by Laws 21 and
40C, period.  *Deliberate* concealment is cheating, of course, but I
don't think that was ever an issue.  My impression is that Sven
doesn't see the difference between the two, either.

Maybe we need to throw this back to Richard, who first used the term:

>> The opponents get annoyed and complain to the TD.
>> How should one rule?

>> Does this fall into the realm of a Concealed Partnership
>> Understanding?  Do concepts like damage factor in to the decision?
>> How should this be handled?

Richard, can you clarify?  What, precisely, did you mean by asking
whether an occurrence like this constitutes a Concealed Partnership
Understanding?  Did you mean something that goes beyond
"misinformation"?  Thanks in advance,

                                -- Adam