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

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Herman De Wael asserted:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> 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.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Richard Hills quibbles:
> 
> In my opinion there could be _three_ different informational
> infractions.
> 
> (1) A sponsoring organisation could permit a particular convention
> to be used without prior disclosure, instead merely requiring
> contemporaneous disclosure via an alert (or an announcement).  If
> such an alert was not made, and the lack of an alert caused damage
> to the non-offending side, then the score should be adjusted on the
> basis of the call being alerted (a Herman De Wael adjustment).
> 
> (2) A sponsoring organisation could ban a particular convention
> under its Law 40D powers.  If a pair used that banned convention it
> is not relevant whether they concealed or revealed their banned
> agreement - either way the score should be adjusted on the basis
> of the call not being made (a "some people" adjustment).
> 
> (3) For the Aussie Interstate Teams, pairs are conditionally
> permitted to use Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) conventions, but
> provided that their opponents are given some weeks' notice of these
> HUM conventions.  In that case, a pair who attempted to use a HUM
> convention without the required pre-disclosure are, in effect,
> playing a banned convention (since the HUM convention was merely
> conditionally declared legal for the event).  Ergo, if the non-
> offending side was damaged, the score should be adjusted on the
> basis of the call not being made (another "some people" adjustment).
> 

Exactly Richard, but neither (2) nor (3) are infractions of 
misinformation. The second type of misinformation I was alluding to, 
and which I said did not exist, was the kind of ruling that goes like 
this:

1C - what is that? - 17+. Ah, but we did not know that in advance! TD!
yes? These people are playing strong clubs but they did not say so at 
the start of the round. Did you? No, sorry, we always do it, but we 
forgot this time. So, are you damaged? Yes, I feel we are, because I 
have not yet had the chance to agree on a defence against strong clubs 
with this partner. OK, I shall therefore rule that 1Cl is an illegal 
use of non-prior disclosed convention, and I shall award 40/60, since 
without a 1Cl opening, I have no way of knowing where the contract 
will go.

That is IMO not a correct ruling, I need to stress! Yet, in a literal 
reading of L40, it might well be. What I am concerned about is if some 
of our readers continue to believe that this is what L40 says.

BTW, I'm pretty certain that you don'tt think so, Richard.


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