[blml] Is this a psych?

[Wayne Burrows]

On 19/04/07, Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be> wrote:
> Wayne Burrows wrote:
>
> >
> > For a bid to be legal you must reasonably expect the opponents to
> > understand or disclose the use of the bid in advance - Law 40B.
> >
> > So someone that bid s 2NT knowing that the opponents might understand
> > it as strong without any prior disclosure is indeed not playing
> > according to the rules.
> >
> > Wayne
> >
>
> Yes Wayne, bnut what troubles me is your (and others') use of the
> sentence "bid is legal". It looks as if you would rule that if the
> disclosure is absent, the bid itself becomes illegal. That is not the
> intention of the laws (IMO).
>
> Perhaps you yourself have no wrong interpretation, but by saying it
> like this, lesser directors might start believing that the remedy is
> to cancel the illegal bid (as they would with a illegal redouble, or
> with the use of an illegal system). I believe when L40C and L12C are
> applied, the infraction would be the not-telling, not the bid itself.
>
> Perhaps more care should be taken in the wording next set of laws.
>

"A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership
understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to
understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such
call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring
organisation." L40C

The bid maybe legal but the law clearly says you are not allowed to
make it if it unless it has been disclosed or the bidder can expect
the opponents to understand it.

Wayne