[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[Guthrie]

[ACBL]
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.

[Adam Wildavsky]

Years ago I asked here for an example case where the differing
interpretations would result in different rulings.

[Steve Willner]

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.

[nige1]

Thank you Steve, for illustrating the effect of this change. In the 
light of Steve's explanation, it seems retrograde to insert "had the 
irregularity not occurred". I doubt that the ACBL realised the 
implication of their decision. I hope they will extirpate the 
offending phrase.

The ACBL are to be applauded, however, for their decision to opt out 
of  the "weighted scores". I wish we could all be spared that 
unnecessary sophistication.