[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ed Reppert]

On Sep 7, 2007, at 7:03 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:

>  However, I do have one disquiet,namely that the
> SO may have licensed the use of convention X on
> condition that it may not be misused or psyched. There would
> then be an infraction of a regulation established under Law 40D,
> independent of and without regard to misexplanation. Such a
> condition is not excluded by the unrestricted language of Law
> 40D. The remedy would then be whatever remedy is prescribed
> for illegal use of a convention.

Hm. SOs have an untrammeled right to regulate conventions, so a  
regulation prohibiting the misuse of a convention - as seems the case  
in fact if not in law in some jurisdictions wrt Ghestem - is legal.  
I'm not so sure it's right, in the broad sense of that word, though.

As to remedy, what if the regulation provides none? It would then be  
up to the TD to apply an applicable law - but convention regulations  
are made under Law 40D, and that law does not specify a remedy. It  
would seem we're left with Law 12A1. Or is there something I've missed?