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

[Steve Willner]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>>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).

Ordinary MI.  No disagreement that I know of.  The same rule applies to 
calls that are not conventions.

>>(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).

Illegal convention ("IC").  Also no disagreement that I know of, though 
different jurisdictions have different rules about exactly how to adjust.

>>(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 ...

And this is the one we've been arguing about.  Everybody agrees (3) is 
illegal, but the question is how to adjust.  Is it MI, IC, or something 
else?

> From: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> Exactly Richard, but neither (2) nor (3) are infractions of 
> misinformation. 

So Herman thinks (3) is another form of IC.  (I happen to agree.)

> 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.

But Herman thinks this one is MI, not IC.  Why is there a difference 
whether the failure to give advance notice comes weeks prior to the 
event or at the start of the round?  Either way, the ensuing damage has 
the same cause.  If timing makes a difference, where's the dividing 
line, and what law or interpretation justifies it?