bluejak, on 2011-June-10, 17:23, said:
Sorry, I have not made myself clear. Sure, Law 73B1 deals with unintended communication between partners, but so do 16B and 73C.
What I am talking about is where an opponent goes wrong because of a remark. Suppose I say "I wonder whether I can make twelve tricks". Assume it is an innocent remark, because I have not realised that a certain happening means even 4♥ is in danger. Now the defence tries a very dangerous defence because of my remark, but let 4♥ through when it was going off.
The remark is not intended to deceive [it would be easy if it were]. What makes it illegal? What brings Law 73F into play?
Law 73D2 said:
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.
Law 73F said:
When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).
Law 73F suspends any requirement to show
intent, it is sufficient to show that the player
could have known that his remark (for which he had no bridge reason) could work to his benefit.
Even a possible fact that the player did not imagine the unfortunate (for his opponents) consequence from an extraneous remark does not excuse him from liability.