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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

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."

 Ed Reppert:

 >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).

 Richard Hills:

 What is the prime cause of divorce?
 Marriage!

 What is the prime cause of use of UI?
 Creation of UI!

 It is a given that use of UI ("divorce") is an infraction which
 may require a score adjustment.

 But is creation of UI ("marriage") also an infraction?

 If both "marriage" and "divorce" are infractions, then a Reveley
 Ruling - as permitted by the WBF Appeals Committee - is a legal
 way of rectifying those two infractions.

 For newbies to blml unacquainted with the Reveley Ruling concept,
 attached is Clause 16.3 from the EBU White Book.

 Best wishes

 Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
 Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
 02 6225 6776

 *     *     *

 16.3 Weighting when a call (or play) is disallowed.

 If a call (or play) is disallowed because the TD judges that an
 illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was
 present then this call or play may not be used in any
 calculations of weighting.  Note that it is possible for the
 result to be included when it might have been reached in another
 way.

 Suppose that there were other possible calls (or plays) that
 would also have been disallowed if chosen.  Then they may not be
 included in any calculations of weighting either.

 Examples

 (a)  East doubles 4H slowly, and West pulls it to 4S making
 exactly.  The TD decides the 4S bid was illegal, but decides to
 give a weighted adjustment because it is not clear how many
 tricks 4H doubled might make, and it might be taken out to 5C,
 which he might decide would be doubled and made.  He might rule:
      20% of NS+750 (5CX=)
 plus 40% of NS-200 (4HX-1)
 plus 40% of NS-500 (4HX-2)
 However, he is not allowed to rule:
      20% of NS+750 (5CX=)
 plus 30% of NS-200 (4HX-1)
 plus 30% of NS-500 (4HX-2)
 plus 20% of NS-620 (4S=)
 because he may not include the disallowed call 4S as part of the
 weighting.  This is affectionately called a "Reveley ruling"
 because of a decision some years ago which brought this problem to
 the L&EC's notice.  Some authorities in other countries permit
 Reveley rulings.

 (b)  In a competitive auction East bids 3H, which makes, but this
 is deemed illegal and disallowed.  However, the TD judges that
 when the auction reaches his partner he would bid 3H much of the
 time.  It is legal to include a percentage of 3H making as an
 adjustment since it is not via the disallowed call.

 (c)  East pauses over 1NT and asks questions, then passes.  West
 doubles with a spade suit and only 12 points, getting 800.  The TD
 decides the double was illegal, but considers a weighted
 adjustment because West might have bid 2S.  There are now two
 possibilities.
 If the TD judges that 2S was a legal action, ie that he would not
 have disallowed it if asked to rule on a 2S bid in the same
 circumstances, then he may give a weighting based on 1NT
 undoubled, and on 2S being bid.
 If the TD judges that 2S was not a legal action, ie that he would
 have disallowed it if asked to rule on a 2S bid in the same
 circumstances, then he may not give any weighting based on 2S
 being bid.  In the example given that means he is going to rule
 1NT undoubled minus three.

 Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please
 advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.
 This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive,
 legally privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review,
 retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons
 or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects
 your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official
 departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at
 www.immi.gov.au See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm