[blml] 40B3

[Guthrie]

[Stefanie Rohan]
I have no problems with agreements based on the opponents' 
irregularities. But to be permitted to have agreements after our own 
irregularities seems seriously misguided. I had thought that such 
agreements were illegal in the past, but it may have been a matter of 
EBU regulations.

Players who can change their bidding systems after they have made an 
illegal bid, or eg change their carding agreements when they have a 
penalty card exposed, can turn out to actually profit from their 
irregularities. I feel very strongly that that should not be the case; 
they should be in a position to lose out or break even.

And yes, I do think that there are players who will deliberately commit 
an infraction if there is no deterrent.

[nige1]
Unless explicitly forbidden by local legislation, 40B3 seems to permit 
you to agree different sets of conventions, that depend on any of the 
following
  - The question that you or opponents ask.
  - The answer that you or opponents give.
  - The option that you or opponent choose after an infraction by you or 
opponents.

It is unpleasant that a normal reading of the law opens a Pandora's box 
of exploits ...

Opponent opens 1C (RHO alerts). Partner doubles (you alert). RHO asks 
what the double means. You explain that partner ...
  - Passes without asking lacking anything to say.
  - Passes after asking with a takeout double.
  - Doubles without asking with 5+ clubs.
  - Doubles after asking with weak notrump.
  - Overcalls without asking with a normal values.
  - Overcalls after asking with stronger hands ...

I agree with Stefanie, that allowing people to vary agreements that 
depend on such things seems mad. It is hard to believe that the 
law-makers intended to encourage this kind of thing.

I go further than Stefanie. I wish that the law did not encourage 
different sets of agreements that depend on which option you choose 
after an infraction by an opponent. Ordinary bidding and play provide a 
sufficient intellectual challenge for most players.

A simple way of doing this would be to specify a single form of redress 
with no player options.

Also, I would like a relatively unqualified version of law 16Aa:

"During the auction and play, your only legitimate communication channel 
with partner is your choice of call or card (respectively). You must use 
prescribed forms, without elegant variation."

[TNLB 16A1a]
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board 
(including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected 
by unauthorized information from another source; *or*

TNLB 40B3]
The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership 
to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a 
question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.