White Book 1.3.2
As I read it, 1.3.2 stops players having two bites at the cherry. They can’t play the hand, then decide that they may have got a better result if they had asked what a bid meant and so played a different contract, and eventually ask for an adjusted score instead.
Does this only apply to the circumstances stated in 1.3.2 or does it apply more widely? For example, if they felt that UI had been given during the bidding by the opposition but failed to call the Director or reserve their rights can they still get an adjusted score by claiming there was UI and the actual contract would have been different.
Comments
1.3.2 only applies to misinformation. In a UI case, if the TD is called earlier, the TD will establish the facts and instruct play to continue. If the TD is called later, if the TD can establish the fact of the unauthorised information, then the TD will rule regardless of whether the TD was called earlier.
1.3.2 arises from (I believe) law 12 which states inter alia that if a side takes action that is an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or is a gambling action such that if it fails they hope to get an adjusted score, then that side does not recover the damage that has been inflicted by their own actions. (The offending side still lose any advantage they gained). Deliberately ignoring a realistic probability that incorrect information might have been given is regarded as such. Experienced players are more likely to be aware that an explanation is implausible, and thus have agreater duty to protect themselves.
NB - this law still applies in UI cases. If the opponents possibly made use of UI in the auction and you then make another call, gambling that it might turn out well, but if it doesn't then the contract will be rolled back, then again you lose the damage that is self inflicted.
It would be up to the TD to decide if a partnership's actions can be regarded as gambling based on the 'protection' of having the auction rolled back. A lot of calls in a contested auction are gambles. In the previous version there was no qualification - the wording was "Serious error, wild or gambling". The current laws specifically define the reason for the gamble.
As Robin says, you don't lose the right to a score adjustment by failing to call the director or to reserve your rights to do so when you consider that UI may be present. The law also specifically states (footnote 5 on law 16) that it is not an infraction to call the director earlier or later than when play ends, if you think you have been damaged.
(Other RAs may insist the TD is called when UI is made available, the EBU recommend that the TD is called, but do not insist on it).
I don't believe that WB 1.3.2 is specifically about Law 12C1(e). It seems to me that it is just a statement that a player who is experienced enough to recognise that he has probably been misinformed has not been damaged by the misinformation if he ignores it in the circumstances stated.