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

[Herman De Wael]

Steve Willner wrote:
> 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.)
> 

I admit that I was a bit baffled when re-reading this, but it is true.

>> 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?
> 

The dividing line is that in the HUM case, the SO has issued a 
technical command before licensing the use of the system. If that 
condition is not met, the system remains just as illegal as it were if 
HUMs were not allowed.

No technical command is given before playing strong clubs, so this 
should not apply.

Of course the technical command to present a completed CC and inform 
the opponents at the start of the round is also not met ...

Yes, there might be a problem with a borderline here.



> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


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