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

[Herman De Wael]

Hello Grattan,

nice to receive a reply so promptly. It appears you have not 
understood the precise question I was asking. Let me interject some 
comments:

Grattan Endicott wrote:
>>
>> 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. 

That is good to hear, I have also not interpreted it that way.

> 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.

I don't think there is any difference between partnership 
understandings and "special" partnership understandings, but that is 
not the problem I am asking about.

>        Making a call without prior disclosure when this is required is an
> infraction. 

OK so far.

> Misinformation (including failure to alert when required) is an
> infraction, whether prior disclosure was required or not.  

Also OK.

> Damage may
> result from an infraction of either type. 

Indeed.

> 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 ~   +=+
>  

Well, the question is simply : are these two infractions one and the 
same, or not.

Some people seem to think that there are 2 different infractions: 
misinformation and illegal use of a non-pre-disclosed convention. If 
that is true, then the first would be penalized by an AS based on 
correct information, while the second would be adjusted based on the 
call not being made.

I believe that interpretation is false, and there is only one 
infraction: that of misinformation. Damage from misinformation may 
come in two forms: either from being misinformed at the table, or from 
not having been able to agree on defences. But both kinds are treated 
in the same manner by the director, who gives an AS based on the call 
being made, but correctly understood by opponents.

Please tell me, Grattan, if that interpretation conforms to your ideas.

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