[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*******************************
"Judge not the play before the play be done"
                     [Sir John Davies 1569-1626]
 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>   
I'm a bit at a loss with this. As I see it, L40A3 handles 
the way calls and plays are made, not exlpanations. But 
I'm dreadfully long-sighted ;-)And the way one explains 
isn't subject to understandings (undisclosed or other), 
the way the Laws use this word.

Apart from that, please notice that nobody ever said 
acting along dWS lines wasn't illegal ; we only stated 
that acting along MS presciptions was illegal too.
<
+=+ It is more precisely Law 40A - and 40C3(b) - 
that establishes the requirement to disclose. However,
the rulings and pronouncements of many years run 
counter to the suggestion that it is an infraction to convey 
UI to partner when complying with the requirement to 
disclose the partnership understanding. It has been 
repeatedly stated that the illegality arises  when the 
partner uses the UI.  The dWS argument is a wish in 
the mind of a player who puts his personal rendition 
of the law on a superior plane, but I have yet to meet 
support for his view from anyone in a position of 
authority. 
                                 ~ Grattan ~   +=+