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

[Herman De Wael]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

>        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 ~   +=+
> 

Grattan does not clear up the question we are all having.

Of course we know that there can be cases where the non-prior 
disclosure carries its own damage. Even a correctly alerted and 
explained call can still cause damage if the opponents were not 
informed before the deal started that a particular convention was 
being used, because by now it is too late to agree on specific 
defensive methods against the call.

The question that we were asking however, was if this infraction is a 
different one than a simple misexplanation. The laws seem to say that 
it is illegal to use an agreement without prior disclosure. That would 
seem to indicate that the penalty would be different. Neither L40 (the 
TD assigns an adjusted score) nor L12 (score ... had the irregularity 
not happened) give us any particular information about the intention 
of the lawgivers. If the irregularity is the non-disclosure, then we 
should give a L12 adjustment based on full disclosure (with opponents 
being able to use their best defensive mechanism); but if the 
irregularity is the call, we should give an adjustment based on the 
call not being made.

Can Grattan tell us which of these options he believes to be the 
correct one?

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be