[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Wildavsky" <adam at tameware.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.


> On Jan 17, 2008 5:58 PM, John Probst <john at asimere.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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?
>>
>> "In 6 I have to take a finesse for just made or two off, so I take the
>> finesse. In 5 I can establish 11 tricks by brute force"
>
>
> How is this relevant? I was in slam and I took 12 tricks. Do you propose
> adjusting my score to -50 because I would have played differently has we
> stopped at the five level? +450 instead of +480 I would understand --
> perhaps that's what you're suggesting.

Yup, it is, and would be a valid claim by the NOs against the OS. TD: 
"adjust from 980 to 450"

>
> -- 
> Adam Wildavsky  <adam at tameware.com>  www.tameware.com
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>