[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************************
"Truth often suffers more by the 
heat of its defenders than from the 
arguments of its opposers."
                 ~ William Penn.
===============================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green 
                   [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>> 
>> As I have noted before when discussing Sven's 
> > touching belief in the CC, quite often in partnerships 
>> one player is The Master.  The Master issues the 
>> diktat "We will play the Hoffmeister 1NT convention".  
>> Then The Master>> writes "Hoffmeister 1NT" on the
>>  CC.  And meanwhile The Master's partner has
>> zero comprehension of what the Hoffmeister 1NT 
>> convention is, which means that there is zero _partnership_ 
>> agreement to play the Hoffmeister 1NT.
>> 
> 
> exactly.
> 
+=+ Indeed? I would think not at all exactly. If the slave  
has allowed The Master to put on his CC a statement
that they are playing the Hoffmeister 1NT, and the slave 
has presented that CC to his opponent, then he has 
committed himself to that partnership agreement. No 
matter that he is ignorant of what it is; his ignorance of 
the convention provides him with no relief. He is liable
for the consequences of his ignorance.
       It is perhaps worthy of a little thought what is the 
effect of he Law in relation to disclosure and making a 
call (whose meaning an opposing pair may not reasonably 
be expected  to understand) without prior disclosure. 
The SO determines how a partnership understanding is 
to be disclosed. If the SO's regulation is satisfied, for 
example, with an alert or announcement - without prior
disclosure on the CC or however -  then the call is made 
lawfully because there has been no breach of the disclosure 
regulation at the time the call is made. Failure to alert etc. 
as required after the call is made creates misinformation 
which may lead to damage of opponents. 
       If a call is made with a meaning that the SO requires 
to be disclosed before the call is made (for example, on 
the CC) then in the absence of such disclosure the call is 
made unlawfully and damage may ensue from that.  If no 
damage arises from that circumstance there may still be 
damage from a failure to alert (or announce) the call as 
the regulations require.
                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+