[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[Adam Wildavsky]

On Jan 14, 2008 9:43 PM, Steve Willner <swillner at nhcc.net> wrote:

> >>> 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.


I'm likewise sure there was not. No need to fight about it, though, it's
easy enough to check.


> 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.


I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because my
opponents defended poorly? Because they were unlikely to do so? Suppose I
had played well to score 12 tricks. That's certainly unlikely! Suppose I
make 12 tricks through guessing a 2-way finesse. Will you rule that, after
all, I might have misguessed? Suppose I make 12 tricks by taking a one-way
finesse. Will I get -50 since the king might, after all, have been offside?

Once we allow for things to have happened differently than they did, other
than the illegal call itself, where do we stop?

-- 
Adam Wildavsky  <adam at tameware.com >  www.tameware.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080116/33639700/attachment.htm