[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ed Reppert]

On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

> Tim West-Meads:
>
>> Bridge is a game of regular tempo, the laws say so, WTP?
>
> Law 73D1:
>
> "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to
> maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players
> should be particularly careful in positions in which
> variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise,
> inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or
> play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of
> propriety, but inferences from such variation may
> appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own
> risk."
>
> ACBL Laws Commission Minutes, Dallas, April 1 2006, Exhibit 2:
>
> "i. In a UI case when one player makes UI available and his
> partner has chosen an illegal logical alternative, is the
> irregularity in the phrase "had the irregularity not
> occurred" the act which created the UI, the choosing of the
> illegal LA, or some combination? We are told that this
> ambiguity is one that only the ACBL seems to have trouble
> with, and that to the rest of the world it is clear that the
> irregularity in question is the act of choosing the illegal
> LA. If that is the case we would still appreciate a
> clarification, since we would prefer laws as little potential
> for misinterpretation as possible."

Perhaps someone should tell the ACBLLC to carefully read Laws 16A and  
73C. Seems pretty clear to me that it's choosing a demonstrably  
suggested
LA (or the equivalent failing to make every effort to avoid taking  
advantage) that results in a score adjustment (the law on score  
adjustment - Law 12 - being where the phrase quoted in the LC minute  
appears).