[duschek]

blackshoe, on Jan 9 2010, 06:38 PM, said:

It is not true that such player can use the UI with impunity. See Law 16C2{c}.

Law 16C2c said:

allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have
affected the result

To me, this sounds like the player can use the UI as he wants, receiving an adjusted score (A+) if he may have gained from it. Obviously, he is not expected to avoid this, risking a bad score.

blackshoe, on Jan 9 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

Hard to say without seeing the hands, but if it was clear from AI to bid 7NT, there being no LA, then yes, that result should stand.

I think it should be even more clear than the non-existence of a logical alternative. If the judgement whether there are logical alternatives not leading to 7NT is not obvious, I will award A+.

As an example, a couple of years ago a player approached me telling that he had heard something about a hand which could be the one he was currently bidding. I asked what he had heard and told him to continue bidding. It turned out that they reached the correct contract, his partner opening a strong club and using relays before placing the final contract. Here I let the score stand.

[blackshoe]

Duschek: In any UI case, a player in receipt of UI can (ie, has the power to) use that UI, or appear to do so, if he wants. That doesn't mean that use of UI won't (as in this case) result in a score adjustment (and, where warranted, procedural penalties).

I do not think, if the bidding proceeds to 7NT and the hand is played out, and 7NT makes, and the TD determines that the declaring side used UI to get there, that an artificial adjusted score (A+) is either appropriate or legal. Rather, you have to determine what alternative scores might have been obtained at the table, and apply the appropriate part of Law 12C1. Even when the judgment is "not obvious". I don't believe Law 12C1{d} should be applied here.

I agree with your ruling in your example case — the UI didn't affect the result, so there's no reason for score adjustment under Law 16C2{c}. Whether the same reasoning will apply in the instant case depends on how the bidding went.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Jan 10 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

In any UI case, a player in receipt of UI can (ie, has the power to) use that UI, or appear to do so, if he wants. That doesn't mean that use of UI won't (as in this case) result in a score adjustment (and, where warranted, procedural penalties).

This is not "any" UI case. It is a UI case where the player received no UI from his partner.

Do you mean that this player should avoid taking advantage of the UI anyway, which may very well give him a bad score? If so, what can he do to get the A+ he deserves from Law 16C2c, being a non-offending side?

[pran]

duschek, on Jan 10 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 10 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

In any UI case, a player in receipt of UI can (ie, has the power to) use that UI, or appear to do so, if he wants. That doesn't mean that use of UI won't (as in this case) result in a score adjustment (and, where warranted, procedural penalties).

This is not "any" UI case. It is a UI case where the player received no UI from his partner.

Do you mean that this player should avoid taking advantage of the UI anyway, which may very well give him a bad score? If so, what can he do to get the A+ he deserves from Law 16C2c, being a non-offending side?

Call the Director!

[blackshoe]

Call the director, as the law requires. And he does not "deserve" avg+. He "deserves" the table result or a proper score adjustment, whichever the TD, IAW the laws, decides.

Suppose the TD had said "play on", and they'd reached 6♦, which iirc was "the third highest result" on the board. If this is higher than average plus, should the TD roll it back to A+? Even without considering that you shouldn't give an artificial adjusted score when a table result has been obtained, I don't think so.

[aguahombre]

pran, on Jan 10 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

duschek, on Jan 10 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 10 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

In any UI case, a player in receipt of UI can (ie, has the power to) use that UI, or appear to do so, if he wants. That doesn't mean that use of UI won't (as in this case) result in a score adjustment (and, where warranted, procedural penalties).

This is not "any" UI case. It is a UI case where the player received no UI from his partner.

Do you mean that this player should avoid taking advantage of the UI anyway, which may very well give him a bad score? If so, what can he do to get the A+ he deserves from Law 16C2c, being a non-offending side?

Call the Director!

I guess that means what blackshoe wrote in the middle paragraph of his previous post doesn't mean anything to you. He doesn't think a TD can adjust on a played board in this circumstance. His interpretation works for me, or at least should be acknowledged as a learned one.

[pran]

aguahombre, on Jan 10 2010, 10:55 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 10 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

duschek, on Jan 10 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 10 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

In any UI case, a player in receipt of UI can (ie, has the power to) use that UI, or appear to do so, if he wants. That doesn't mean that use of UI won't (as in this case) result in a score adjustment (and, where warranted, procedural penalties).

This is not "any" UI case. It is a UI case where the player received no UI from his partner.

Do you mean that this player should avoid taking advantage of the UI anyway, which may very well give him a bad score? If so, what can he do to get the A+ he deserves from Law 16C2c, being a non-offending side?

Call the Director!

I guess that means what blackshoe wrote in the middle paragraph of his previous post doesn't mean anything to you. He doesn't think a TD can adjust on a played board in this circumstance. His interpretation works for me, or at least should be acknowledged as a learned one.

I must admit I hadn't seen that post of his when I wrote my comment.

On reading it I agree with what he writes except that I see no reason why Law 12C1{d} "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score" cannot be applicable.

Still I stand by my comment: What a player must do in order to protect his interests when he fears or suspects an irregularity is just to call the Director and let him take charge. I see no conflict with blackshoe here?

[blackshoe]

No conflict, Sven. As for 12C1{d}, I didn't say it cannot apply, just that the TD should make every effort to avoid applying it. Or IOW, the fact that the TD will have to do a little work to come up with an appropriate assigned adjusted score is not an excuse for taking the easy out.