Now, as far as articulations or explanations of BoD go ... this one is actually fairly solid and it not heretical (like most of them).  He's very careful to avoid making the heretical statement that we can be saved without Baptism, but says we can be saved without ACTUAL (reception of) Baptism.  That's the language of St. Robert Bellarmine who was very carefuly to put it that way to avoid the impression of denying Trent's dogmatic teaching that Baptism is necessary for salvation, since if you claimed that one can be saved WITHOUT it, that would be heretical.  But most people today are sloppy and invariably define it heretically.

So this is acceptable as an explanation or articulation.

Yeah, I've never "condemned" anyone as a heretic JUST for believing in BoD, since it's clearly been tolerated and even at times favored by the Church, BoD meaning that one could be SAVED without the ACTUAL reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, i.e. by receiving Baptism in voto.  That's one of the points on which I disagree with the Dimond Brothers.  Now, I do believe that it's OBJECTIVELY heretical, but the Church hasn't defined otherwise.  I believe there are two dogmatic definitions which all but excluded a BoD in the sense of it being capable of bringing SALVATION, but it's still my interpretation of those.  What I mean by that, i.e. it being objectively heretical, is the equivalent of ... if I were to have held before Vatican II that papal infallibility is a dogma.  So, in once sense I would have been right, because dogmas were all revealed from the beginning, objectively speaking, but in another it hadn't been proposed with sufficient clarity by the Church's authority so that someone denying papal infallibility before Vatican I would be considered a heretic.

I'm not going to refute the "proofs" adduced in detail, just to say that St. Ambrose says that the state of unbaptized martyrs is that of having been "washed but now crowned" (and then hopes that Valentinian might experience something like that by his piety and zeal) ... and elsewhere he says explicilty that even the best catechumens who die without Baptism cannot enter the Kingdom.  St. Augustine later retracted his opinion.  And that's really it.

I wouldn't spend 5 minute arguing against someone (other than in a friendly or academic way) who held this particular definition of BoD. 

Now, the next question is whether, given how it's defined, whether some Jew who rejects Christ can be saved by this BoD.

and many err gravely by advocating for an IMPLICIT BoD.