Law 73E - deception
Recently, we had a situation where in a teams match, S (first in hand all vul) opened 1NT (15-17), N bid 3NT, which ended the auction. West led a H, and declarer said after dummy went down, sorry partner, we are in the wrong contract, I've got 6 suits (I can't remember his precise words, he may have said 5 suits).
The heart went to East's A followed by the Q, declarer took this with the K, and played the AS. Dummy started with J86,654,Q7,AK1073, and East had void,AQJ8,J1086,QJ964. East played the 6D on this. Declarer started with AK10954,K2,AK954,void. So now declared played AD, small D to the Q, Cashed the AKC - throwing spades, and back to hand with a spade, and cashed the remaining Diamonds - for 5D, KH and two AKs for 10 tricks.
East now complained that these gratuitous comments from declarer, had confused the situation, and could they get a ruling. In the end the captain of the team decided not to pursue it further. However looking at law 73E(2).
'If the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it would work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.'
Of course declarer had only '4 suits' - two spade suits, a diamond suit, and a heart suit
So we have here 'an innocent player' drawing a false inference from a remark. The opponent had no demonstrable bridge reason for his comment, and he could have been aware it might lead to his benefit. So the last sentence says an adjusted score shall (must) be awarded.
I'm not so much concerned about this specific case - as I said the ruling was not pursued. I'm certain that S was not aware it could lead to his benefit - but the law only says he could have been aware. I don't know why E discarded the small diamond on the first spade, what the thought process to arrive at that discard was. Had a diamond not been discarded, declarer could have played on spades, hoping for either a H blockage, or for them to be 4-4, or Diamonds to be 3-3.
East was not asked why a diamond was discarded, nor North on whether that was the reason, that diamonds were played. East was more complaining about confusion from South's remark - rather than a specific false inference.
To my mind on the basis of fairness, East should not be able to rectify their mistake (if it was a mistake - though it could be East was expecting to need to make several discards, and made the less obvious one first), by summoning the director, and getting a ruling based on 'might' and 'could'.
What I would like the law to say is that an innocent party cannot get an adjusted score, when they have made an 'unjustified' error. Perhaps the white book could clarify.