[blml] Online Bridge

[Adam Beneschan]

Steve wrote:
 
> There is a definite difference in the laws applied and their effect. 
> "CPU" refers to a violation of L40B, while "MI" refers to violation of 
> some part of L75.  The effect of the difference is in the adjustment.  A 
> MI adjustment is based on opponents having received correct information, 
> whereas a CPU adjustment is based on the call carrying a concealed 
> agreement not having been made.  (Read L40B with care.)  The results 
> will often differ.

My problem with this is that, after reading Law 40B with care, I can't
imagine a case of MI that doesn't violate Law 40B.  Any time the
opponents are misinformed, we have an agreement that has not been
properly disclosed.  I don't see how you can have the first without
the second.

You're right that there seems to be some ambiguity about what should
be considered to be the "irregularity"---the call or the
misexplanation/failure to explain---and that this would affect how
L12C2 is applied.  But it sounds to me, from Herman's response, that
this problem will be going away in the next edition of the Laws, so
the point is moot.  I haven't checked any of the WBFLC minutes to see
if they address this issue.

 
> A year or two ago, I asked how one decided whether a particular 
> infraction was CPU or MI.  No one answered, and I don't see anything in 
> the Laws that makes it clear.  My own suggestion is that CPU applies to 
> _advance_ disclosure (e.g. convention card or pre-announced agreements), 
> whereas MI applies to "at the table" disclosure (alerts and 
> explanations).  

I've always interpreted 40B, in particular the passage about "unless
his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the
regulations of the sponsoring organization", to apply to Alerts (among
other things).  In other words, Law 40B is about "full disclosure" in
general and is *the* Law that underlies the requirement to fully
disclose; it's not just about those agreements that need to be
disclosed in advance or listed on CC's.

Anyway, that's always been my interpretation.  We can argue, but it
appears to be a moot point anyway.  

                                -- Adam