[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Hello Richard,

I see that you have not yet mellowed. Although, why should you?

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Konrad Ciborowski:
> 
>> De Wael School has nothing to do with varying understandings.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> I agree, which is why the reference to the De Wael School was
> restricted inside the brackets which referred merely to varying
> explanations.
> 

which is not forbidden by L16 (any version).

> Konrad Ciborowski:
> 
>> Coming up: Richard explaining why L1 makes dWS illegal.
> 
> Grattan Endicott:
> 
> +=+ In a sense Law 40B3 is a 'belt and braces' law. If there is
> a pre-announced agreement to change the meaning it is subject
> to regulation in the RA's discretion under 40B2(a). If there is
> an understanding, not announced, its use is in breach of Law 40A3.
> The purpose of 40B3 is to be explicit and not leave the matter to
> be deduced from the operation of other laws.
>                                            ~ G ~   +=+

I still do not see what "understandings" have to do with the dWS. I 
again emphasise that the restrictions on bidding by a player whose 
partner has given a wrong explanation are totally the same under the 
dWS and any other. In fact, I stress this fairly strongly.

> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> The 2007 Law 40A3 (and 40A1(b) also) make the De Wael School
> illegal. 

Let's read 2007L40A3 then:

A player may make any call or play without prior
announcement provided that such call or play is not based
on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law
40C1).

I see nothing therein about explaining.

I stop this discussion right now.


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html