In article 
<7505603.210.1319067526398.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums_at_prgt10>,
 Stu Goodgold  wrote:

> The ACBL CDR (Code of Disciplinary Regulations) has this guideline:
> 
> E5 Purposefully fail to disclose partnership agreements with intent to 
> deceive (CDR 3.2 and 3.7) - 1 year Probation and or up to 1 year Suspension.
> 
> So a CPU that can be shown to be done knowingly and purposefully is well on 
> the way to a severe penalty.
> 
> Perhaps my use of the adjective 'tantamount' was excessive.   Just the same, 
> a pair that knows their agreements and fails to disclose them is doing so 
> purposely most of the time.  If they have been told by a TD before that they 
> must disclose their agreements, explicit and implicit, and still fail to do 
> so, that sure sounds like intent to deceive.
> 
> My point was that a CPU, and an IPU in particular, needs to be proven via a 
> history of concealment.  In general, I don't see how a TD can do this by a 
> single visit to the table.

IPU and CPU are two independent things.

A PU may be either explicit or implied, depending on whether the 
partners have actually discussed it or just learned it intuitively from 
experience playing with each other.

A PU is a CPU if you fail to disclose it properly to the opponents.  
This is true whether it's an explicit PU or an IPU.

And finally, whether a CPU is considered cheating depends on whether you 
fail to disclose it *intentionally*.  If it's out of ignorance, that's 
not cheating.

There is a correlation between some IPUs and CPUs, though.  When you 
have an IPU, you may not even realize it, it could be subconscious 
knowledge.  In that case, you can hardly be expected to disclose it, so 
it will necessarily be a CPU as well.  But if it comes up and someone 
makes a point of it you'll become aware of it, and should disclose it 
from then on.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA