[blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Gampas at aol.com]

In a message dated 04/10/2007 22:57:25 GMT  Standard Time, 
richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes:
Paul  Lamford:

[snip]

>exploiting the fact that partner would now  know
>that I would have passed over a limit 3H, and
>therefore must  have a marginal 3S bid, is not
>active ethics.

[snip]

Law  72A4:

When these Laws provide the innocent side with an
option after  an irregularity committed by an
opponent, it is appropriate to select that  action
most advantageous.

WBF Code of Practice, page 6:

A  contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of
ethics where a player is in  breach of the
provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct
of players.  A player who has conformed to the
laws and regulations is not subject to  criticism.  

Thanks for that clarification. Then I would rate 3S quite highly in the  
auction as stated; it is known to be only four and is now limited, but still I  
think I prefer double.
 
I contested a claim once, which required a finesse which was almost  certain 
to be right. The appeal committee ruled that the declarer could not take  the 
finesse as he had not stated this to be his intention, but the wording of  
their decision was a mild rebuke of my action in contesting it. 
 
Paul