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

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
**********************
"The searcher's eye not seldom
finds more than he wished to find."
               G.E. Lessing (1779)
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Any redress or rub of the green
                    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>
> 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.
<
+=+ Now this last is a statement that I question. Law 40A permits
any call not based upon a partnership understanding without prior
announcement. It also implies that there should be prior announcement
of 'a partnership understanding'. However, there is evidently a distinction
to be made between this and a 'special partnership understanding' to
which 40B refers. To be 'special' an understanding has to be 'additional
to what is normal and general' (CoP). I draw from all of this that whilst
under 40A there should be prior disclosure of understandings that are
not additional to what is normal and general - as much as is basic to and
covered by the system named on the card - special understandings to
which 40B refers are to be disclosed as the SO requires. The partnership
may not be required by the SO's regulations to disclose some of these in
advance but only by an alert/announcement when the call is made.
       Making a call without prior disclosure when this is required is an
infraction. Misinformation (including failure to alert when required) is an
infraction, whether prior disclosure was required or not.  Damage may
result from an infraction of either type. I have not been following the 
detail
of this topic closely but possibly those who have will be able to determine
from this what my position would be.
                                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+