[blml] 2007 Laws - ACBL's options.

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Adam Wildavsky" <adam at tameware.com>
> I reach a slam and take 12 tricks. Why will you award me -50? Because my
> opponents defended poorly?

The justification would be that once you commit an infraction, you no 
longer benefit from opponents' bad play.

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

I'm not saying the above is the only possible ruling.  I'm not even 
advocating any particular position.  Reasonable people can (and do!) 
disagree on what basis for ruling is best for the game.  However, L12C1 
(2007; 12C2 in 1997) certainly contemplates that the OS ruling can 
include results even with the infraction leaves it to each RA to decide 
what it wants to do.

I personally would prefer to see worldwide uniformity on this matter, 
but it isn't the most important area for agreement.

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> I was asking whether 
> the ACBL's treatment of 1997 Law 12C2 was 
> to add 'had the irregularity not occurred' after 
> 'the most unfavourable result that was at all probable'
> (as they have decided to do in the 2007 laws) 

Sorry; I misunderstood.  I don't recall any previous official ACBL 
pronouncement on the subject, but such things are not always widely 
dessiminated.  I also don't recall any appeal where the adjustment 
hinged on this issue, though there must have been some.  Adam or Marvin 
(or indeed any of several other people) may remember something.