[blml] Online Bridge

[Adam Beneschan]

Alain wrote:
 
> At 09:06 23/10/2006 -0700, you wrote:
> >  If you're going
> >to give a CC to your opponents, but with a caveat that it's not
> >guaranteed to be accurate, what would be the difference between giving
> >them a CC and giving them an online copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
> 
> None. So you committed the infraction of inaccuracy (or absence) of CC. 
> This is, by far, less serious than a concealed agreement : the former means 
> you're a lunatic or a couldn't-care-less ; the latter that you're a cheat. 
> So I still don't see why you should deal with the former by pretending it's 
> the latter.

Of course you shouldn't.  And to my knowledge, nobody in this thread
has suggested that it should be.  Richard's original post first used
the term "concealed partnership understanding", but I don't believe he
was asking whether people who post an incorrect "Full Disclosure"
thing online should be considered cheats.  I think a couple people
here have read too much into those words, and the result has, for the
most part, been a long argument about nothing between people who don't
actually disagree about anything relevant.

There may be a difference in connotation between "concealed
partnership understanding" and "misinformation"; but except for Steve,
most of us seem to think there's no difference in how they're handled
according to the Laws; and I don't think Richard was asking about
whether there should be any additional punishment (ranging from
procedural or disciplinary penalty to suspension/expulsion for
cheating).

I haven't yet read all of Steve's post or Herman's counterargument.
But *assuming* Herman is correct, then I think it's clear that the way
to deal with the situation Richard originally described is that it's
misinformation, and you adjust if there was damage; and to the
question of whether it should be treated as MI or CPU, my answer would
be, why should we care, since it appears not to make a difference in
how we handle it?  This is how things are handled by the current Laws,
and I see no reason why any change in the Laws would be necessary to
deal with this new way of disclosing agreements.  

                                -- Adam