[blml] 40B3, etc.

[Steve Willner]

>>For example, if you make an insufficient bid which cannot be  
>>untangled, so
>>partner must call an enforced pass, and you choose a rational guess of
>>punting 3NT, you keep your top if the field has had a scientific  
>>auction to
>>6NT failing by one trick due to a 5-0 break.

I've lost who posted this, but the conclusion was correct under the old 
Laws.  As will appear below, I believe the new Laws change it.

>>"...Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side  
>>obtains a
>>table result less favourable than would have been the expectation  
>>had the
>>infraction not occurred..."

> From: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
>  Ruth is in the  
> expectation, where 6NT is superior to 3NT; Mabel is in the actuality,  
> where 3NT is superior to 6NT.

Eric here seems to be basing "expectation" only on the partnership's 26 
cards.  If, however, you look at all 52, presumably the expectation 
absent the IB will be 6NT-1.

I don't see how L27D combined with L12B allows the table score to stand. 
  Even if the NOS commit a "serious error," the OS score will still be 
the "expectation."  I can't read anything else into L27D, where "could 
have known" does not appear.  This represents a major change from past 
practice.  Perhaps it was considered a tradeoff for the much more 
greater ability to correct IBs without barring partner.  The OS is more 
likely to get its "proper" score but is barred from a windfall, no 
matter how unpredictable.

If this is not what the new Laws are supposed to mean, we need an 
interpretation.  (Personally I don't much like the change, but my 
opinion doesn't count.)