[blml] 40B3? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[David Burn]

[GE]

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.

[DALB]

Another thought has struck me. When partner has given MI, there is a
requirement to disclose this fact at the end of the auction if one becomes
declarer. Now, Herman may say that this is an "inconsistency" in the laws,
because it involves an indication in some manner that a mistake has been
made, so that L20F5 (in the 2007 code) is at variance with L75B. What it
indicates to me, though, is that there is obviously a time limit on the
L20F5 injunction not to indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.
That time limit is usually: the end of the auction for the declaring side;
the end of the hand for the defending side. 

But when an opponent asks for an explanation, and giving that explanation
may provide unauthorised information to partner (in effect, "correcting"
partner's earlier misexplanation) one can take the view that the time limit
implied (but not stated) in L20F5 has expired. The same view might be taken
when a player makes a call that indicates in some manner that partner's
explanation was erroneous (e.g. 1C explained as Vienna, 1NT game-forcing in
Vienna, pass because we are not playing Vienna). Otherwise, of course, the
partner of someone who has misexplained a bid would be in an impossible
position.

If there is going to be an appendix to the Laws before the next revision, it
should obviously include some reference to the matter. But really, the
question is a simple one and ought not to have occupied everyone here for as
long as it has. Since partner can't legally use your explanations, they
aren't legally indications. End of story, and end of dWS.

David Burn
London, England