[blml] Profit from irregularites

[Nigel]

[Sven Pran]
> The laws are already crystal clear here: Once partner has accepted this
> opening bid out of turn it is to be treated as if it were legal; that 
> is as
> if LHO was in fact the dealer. So your agreements on doubles over 
> pre-empts
> obviously apply, and if you have any other understanding with your 
> partner
> on the double in this case that will be a concealed partnership
> understanding.
>   
[nige1]

I fear that Sven underestimates the rationalizing skills of those with 
agreements contingent on irregularities.

Were I devil's advocate on behalf of such a secretary bird, I'd argue 
that law 29A below doesn't force me to treat the call by a player who 
opens out of turn as if he made the same call as dealer. Both auctions 
may be *legal* but they're different. I've discussed only what to do 
over a *normal* 3H opener. I've no understanding after 3H bid out of 
turn and then legally accepted.

An analogy: I told an opponent that we play negative doubles at all 
levels. He queried "even if I overcall 7S?" I confessed that I'd 
unilaterally abandon our agreement in that unexpected event.

Nevertheless. Sven's argument reveals another simple legal change that 
would outlaw some agreements based on irregularities:

If you condone an insufficient call (or call out of turn) then the 
irregularity becomes *unauthorised information* to you.

Unfortunately, such an interpretation isn't implicit in current law. 
Anyway it's hard for a naive player to abide by a law that insists that 
he ignores his most recent memory. IMO, *removing LHO's options* is a 
simpler more effective solution.

An third simple solution would be to clearly legalize such agreements, 
informing players now and in the new edition of the laws.

[TFLB 29A]
Following a call out of rotation, offender's LHO may elect to call, 
thereby forfeiting the right to penalize.