[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[Steve Willner]

>>> 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the
>>> words "had the irregularity not occurred" are
>>> inserted between "probable" and the period
>>> ending the sentence.

> From: Adam Wildavsky <adam at tameware.com>
> Years ago I asked here for an example case where the differing 
> interpretations would result in different rulings.

I'm sure there was a reply at the time.  Here's a simple example: NS use 
hesitation Blackwood to bid slam, which should go down.  However, EW 
through an "irrational, wild, or gambling" defense let the slam make.

In most jurisdictions, EW get -980 because they weren't damaged by the 
UI use but by their own play.  (I think a few jurisdictions give them 
-480, but I'm not sure of that.)  In most of the world, NS get -50, the 
worst "at all probable" score _with or without_ the infraction.  With 
the above ACBL election, they will get +450, the worst "at all probable" 
result _without_ the infraction.

Reasonable people can, of course, disagree on what the appropriate 
results ought to be.  The point of interest is the difference between 
the ACBL and practice elsewhere.

The ability to give weighted scores isn't relevant to this issue, though 
it's another difference between ACBL and international practice.