[blml] Any redress or rub of the green

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
..................
> Knowing that you've been given misinformation, you can get
> out of their way and hope they do, but that doesn't mean you get
> redress if they don't.

You do not "know" that you have been given misinformation; you know that you
have been given conflicting information. And it is not your duty or even
obligation to "protect yourself" if this will assist your opponents to get
their possible misunderstanding clarified.

And if you have a fair reason for assuming which information is correct and
it turns out that you assumed wrong you shall almost automatically have the
privilege of a misinformation ruling. Whether this ruling will result in
redress depends on what damage if any is established. (Look further down for
the case when you cannot reasonably assume which information is correct.)

> 
> >IMO, what is written on a convention card should be taken as a pair's
> >agreement -- even if both players have subsequently forgotten it or have
> >agreed" something else. A player should never be penalized for relying
> >on the accuracy of his opponents' convention card.
> 
> What is disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring
> organization" (L40B) should be taken as a pair's agreement.  The SO
> "may prescribe a convention card" (L40E1), but that doesn't make it a
> sacred text that automatically takes precedence over all other forms of
> disclosure "in accordance with the regulations" (unless, of course, the
> SO says so in its regs).  

Written declarations that have been prepared in advance will almost always
take precedence over all other forms of disclosure, period.

> If you are aware that the opponents
> convention cards differ so that (at least) one of them contains MI
> perforce, you cannot claim damage regardless of which one was accurate
> by invoking some "right" to "rely on the accuracy" of whichever one you
> choose.  It makes no legal difference  (absent a specific reg from the
> SO) that the "disclosure 'in accordance'" came from one opponent via
> the CC and from the other via the alert procedure.  You still know that
> you have MI from one or the other.

Here you mix two different cases:
If the two convention cards differ then you will have the information from
one and your partner will have from the other. Consequently you have no
reason to be aware of the conflict between the two convention cards and the
laws will protect you if the information given to you is incorrect. 
If you are given one information by the CC and a different information by an
alert or a missing alert then you are normally entitled to ignore the alert
or missing alert and base your actions on what has been declared on the CC.
Redress is very seldom granted to a player who claims damage due to an
incorrect alert or a missing alert if the call in question has properly been
declared on the CC, especially if this declaration is given on the front
(main) page of the CC. The CC is available to you for a reason.
.........
> The time to restore equity that has been disturbed by an infraction is
> when you become aware of the disturbance. 

Wrong: The time to restore equity is when damage caused by the infraction is
established.

> Knowing you have MI, you can
> get your equity protected by calling the director.

True, but you don't "know" that you have misinformation just because you
have conflicting information. You "know" that you have been misinformed when
you discover that the information you have trusted for good reasons was
incorrect. Even then you don't know for certain that you have been damaged
by this misinformation, and the Director when called at this time should
instruct you to continue the play of the cards and to call him again at the
end of the play if you at that time feel damaged by the misinformation. 

........

> If you fear that you will wake them up to a misunderstanding, you are
> perfectly free to keep your knowledge of their MI infraction to
> yourself and hope that this will induce them to have one.  But doing so
> does not entitle you to the result of such a misunderstanding if they
> don't actually have one.  You can obtain redress for the MI at the
> point it becomes known.  You cannot obtain "redress" for their not
> having a bidding misunderstanding only after it becomes known that they
> didn't have one.  That's the whole point of L11A.

At last some sense. If you have reason to suspect that you cannot safely
assume which of different conflicting information is correct then you should
call the Director. (Note that a missing alert does not normally give you
reason to believe that declaration on the CC of a conventional call is
incorrect.) 

The opponent who has disclosed an incorrect understanding of the call shall
be denied the right to base his further actions on the correct understanding
when this understanding could be the result of his misunderstanding being
clarified by you calling the Director. 

This means for instance that if a player mistakenly may have believed that a
particular call was natural and therefore did not alert this call he may not
thereafter (during the auction and play of that board) select his actions
from his knowledge of the true agreement when this knowledge could be the
result of for instance "a reply to a question". If he does he shall be ruled
to having violated Law 16A2.

Regards Sven