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

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"Progress is not an accident but
 a necessity."  
                      {Herbert Spencer}
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>  If the agreement is illegal per the regulation, then bidding  
> according to that agreement is illegal. 
> 
+=+ In an earlier contribution to this thread I averred 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".
      Under the Westminster convention previously alluded to, 
I present no personal opinion but consider myself bound, as a 
member of the WBFLC, to put forward only its corporate  
decision - viz. (1st Nov 2001):
      "The committee confirmed that a regulating authority has 
unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D. 
Attention was drawn to situations where these powers are 
used to ban the use of certain conventions, as by the WBF in 
category 3 events, or to ban the psyching of opening artificial 
bids in specified circumstances, as by the American Contract 
Bridge League in tournaments where its regulations apply and 
by the European Bridge League in pairs events. The committee 
deprecated reported occurrences of applying penalties when 
players err in their use of Ghestem except in the circumstances 
envisaged in the WBF Code of Practice*."
(* "a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is 
not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural 
penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for 
example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the 
way to redress damage.")
        So the WBFLC interpretation of the law is that regulation of 
conventions is wholly unrestricted, and an infraction of regulation 
may lead to score adjustment.  However, misuse of a convention 
should not be the occasion of a penalty, even if it breaches the
regulation, unless it is several times repeated.  
                                         ~ Grattan ~   +=+