[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[Tim West-Meads]

Steve wrote:
 
> 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.  

In most cases where a side gets to a non-making slam like this those who
have interpreted the hesitation as showing extras have turned out to be
wrong.  The hesitation being solely due to the player trying to work out
what the response means.  Result stands in such cases.

>(I think a few jurisdictions give them -480, but I'm not sure of
> that.)  

Were I to judge that a hesitation *did* show extras I would rule +480 if
I also also judged the the misdefence was unrelated to the infraction.

> In most of the world, NS get -50, the worst "at all probable" score
> _with or without_ the infraction.

Not in my little corner thereof.  I have always believed that the 1997
laws "at all probable" logically referenced the same "had the infraction
not occurred" as did the "likely".  AFAIK the WBFLC never contradicted
that interpretation.

>  With the above ACBL election, they will get +450, the 
> worst "at all probable" result _without_ the infraction.

Only if one considers it "at all probable" that the misdefence would not
have occurred.  On average people defend slams *more* carefully than they
do 5-level contracts so I'd need some convincing.

Tim