Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
I'd like to present 3 similar scenario in which the definition of Mark-Room and Proper Course interact. I believe Mark-Room is a dynamic situation and not a corridor of entitlement.
Scenario 1. KC with MR, deviates from her PC on approach to Mark whilst being the inside boat.
I believe, that in Scenario 1, the KC boat, with MR is no longer entitled to Room from P3 since she is no longer sailing to the Mark ("Room to sail to the Mark when her Proper Course is to sail close to it") . Disqualify Yellow (R10). No exoneration (R43) since she was outside her entitlement to Room.
I believe, that in Scenario 2, the boat with MR (Yellow) at P6, is sailing her Proper Course to the Mark and is entitled to Room. Disqualify Blue (R18). Exonerate (R43) Yellow, even if broken R10 since she was sailing within the Room to which she was entitled.
I believe, that in Scenario 3, the boat with MR (Yellow) had been given Room ("Room to round or pass the Mark on the required side") But had lost entitlement to Room when she deviated from her PC (at P7, P8) so was no longer entitled to Room to sail to the Mark because it was no longer her Proper Course to sail close to it. Disqualify Yellow (R10). No exoneration since she was not sailing within her entitlement to Room.
Stewart .. Scenario #1 in US130 addresses your Scenario #3. Since the mark is directly DW, Yellows MR does not include room to gybe.
"In Diagram 1, Boat A is entitled to mark-room. But because A does not need to gybe and sail on port tack to begin sailing the next leg on her optimum angle to the wind, mark-room does not include room to gybe and sail on port tack during her rounding maneuver. If A gybes and sails on port tack and breaks rule 10, she is not exonerated by rule 43.1(b) for her breach. "
Hi Michael. By "corridor" I am refering to an interpretation by some that there is a defined at-the-zone corridor along which a boat may sail which does not change as the boat moves from the Zone edge towards the Mark. I think I have shown a dynamic situation where the "Room" required changes as the position of the boat changes. In my Scenario 1, some would say that from P1, Yellow can sail wherever she likes within a corridor of, perhaps, 1.5 boat lengths width. I would say that she must continue to sail her Proper Course towards the Mark to retain her Room entitlement. In Scenario 2, the KC boat with Mark-Room can sail wherever she likes - but - if she wants to benefit exoneration for an infringement, she must be sailing her Proper Course from whatever is her current position towards the Mark. In Senario 3, the boat with Mark-Room (Yellow) is well outside her original "corridor" but is now sailing directly to the Mark - therefore the course "close to it" is indeed her Proper Course.
In scenario 1, yellow enters zone overlapped inside and is entitled to room to sail to the mark, pass it on the correct side and leave it astern. The application of proper course is a bit odd here. I know it is in the definition of mark room. However, yellow is not the ROW boat. She actually is not entitled to sail the course she would sail if blue were not there. She is required to sail to the mark. In this scenario, yellow took more room that she was entitled to take. She broke rule 10 and 18. If there is damage or injury, I might also DSQ Blue if we determined that it was possible for her to avoid the contact as soon as she realized that yellow was not going to avoid the collision. But if no damage or injury occurred, exonerate Blue for breaking rule 14.
In scenario 2, yellow enters clear ahead. She is entitled to room to round as she normally would (her proper course), which would include a "wide and tight rounding." She never left the zone so rule 18 is still in effect. Blue had no right to go in there and is disqualified. Rule 18 puts a limitation of the starboard boat. She must give yellow room to round and she did not. DSQ Blue for breaking rule 18 and 14. This collision looks like it could cause damage. Yellow also broke rule 14 since it certainly appears that she had a way to avoid the collision. She is exonerated if there is no damage or injury, but not if there is.
For the last scenario, rule 18 turns off once room has been given. At position 5, yellow has left the mark clear astern. She is not entitled to room to gybe when rounding the windward mark. (This scenario is addressed in case US 130, as Angelo pointed out). Yellow breaks rule 10. Same issues around rule 14 could apply. The one caveat here is that we may find that once it was obvious that yellow was not going to keep clear, blue may not have been able to keep clear by anything but a crash gybe--not a seamanlike maneuver. If we found that to be the case, then blue didn't break rule 14 and needs no exoneration (see case 87 )
Anthony. Comments appreciated. I have wondered about "At position 5, Yellow has left the Mark clear astern". In the past I've looked into this and in a Case (can't immediately find it) there was an apparent dispensation for a boat to temprarily and briefly leave the Mark astern as in this senario and hold on to Mark-Room. But I would welcome opinion whether such a temporary "left astern" ends Mark-Room entirely. I am switching off Room (even if Mark-Room still applies) because Yellow's PC is to sail to the next Mark, not the one shown here. So part a) in the definition is not fulfilled. Agreed?
I see, i believe in the corridor, but it is little wider than the boat, not a boatlength. Interestingly, i am not sure the boat in 3 has left the mark astern. I think 18 still applies, but she is just sailing outside the mark room she is entitled to. I look at the way match racing deals with leaving the mark astern to consider this.
Angelo. I'm not sure if a US interpretation would be generally known in the UK. Still no-one seems to be supporting my take that since she is not sailing to that Mark as her Proper Course, then she is not entitled to Mark Room. I thought that was the more obvious. Yellow is not sailing her Proper Course when she is sailing back to the Mark, since her PC is to sail to the next Mark. Therefore she does not satisfy Mark-Room definition a). Therefore if she breaks another rule, she will not be exonerated under R43. And she breaks R10 on this occasion. Does no-one support that reasoning?
Stewart .. in Scenario #3, I'd be inclined to say that for Yellow all elements of MR are given at or just after #5, as from that position, Yellow can not get closer to the mark without gybing. The other elements of MR are satisfied at 5 as well.
I agree with Stewart in all his conclusions, though, like Michael, I am not entirely clear about the corridor issue. There are no corridors mentioned in rule 18, and in general it's a bad idea to apply principles that are not in the rules. Certainly the test of whether it is the boat's proper course to sail to the mark is made at every instant, not predetermined.
I am a little concerned by one thing Anthony said: "In this scenario, yellow took more room that she was entitled to take. She broke rule 10 and 18." There is no rule prohibiting a boat from taking more room then she is entitled to, and a boat entitled to mark-room cannot break rule 18 (except rule 18.4, which doesn't apply in any of Stewart's scenarios). Anthony is correct in saying that the inside boat breaks rule 10. In general, a boat that takes too much room can only be disqualified if she breaks another rule, commonly a rule of Section A of Part 2 of the RRS, or rule 17.
“Certainly, the test of whether it is the boat's proper course to sail to the mark is made at every instant, not predetermined.”
Rob, are you saying that at positions 3 and 4 in scenario 1, we should re-evaluate whether yellow’s proper course at that time is to sail “close to the mark”, and conclude that since it is, then yellow’s mark room at that time includes room to “sail to the mark” from that position? This would mean that yellow would be sailing within the room to which she is entitled at that time?
Rob and Bob. That is exactly the point I am trying to establish. Rob's statement makes the point - we should re-evaluate whether a boat's proper course at that time (moment to moment) is to sail "close to the mark". If the boat is not sailing her Proper Course to the Mark, then she does not have "Room". With respect to my 3rd scenario, I am looking for support that at P7 (even if Mark-Room had not ended per definition "c)" at P5 - i.e. her transom had not passed the Mark, and even though Mark-Room is still in force, "Room" is no longer available.) Yellow's Proper Course is to sail to the next Mark, not to the shown Mark (even if she still has Mark-Room) because it is not her Proper Course to sail close to it, so she is not entitled to Room, so if/when she breaks R10 at P8 (and maybe R16.1 too) then she will not be exonerated by R43. With respect to Scenario 1, at P3, Yellow is NOT sailing her Proper Course to the Mark so she is no longer entitled to Room. She has broken RRS10, and because outside her "Room" entitlement, she will not be exonerated under RRS43. I suggest that, from moment to moment, the course of a boat with Mark-Room must be her Proper Course to sail close to the Mark - otherwise she does not have Room and if she then infringes a Rule, she will not be exonerated. (I think "Grasshopper" is correctly interpreting the "Master's" lesson? )
With respect to my 3rd scenario, I am looking for support that at P7 (even if Mark-Room had not ended per definition "c)" at P5 - i.e. her transom had not passed the Mark, and even though Mark-Room is still in force, "Room" is no longer available.)
Steward .. here's my opinion on your concluding comment.
With respect to my 3rd scenario, I am looking for support that at P7 (even if Mark-Room had not ended per definition "c)" at P5 - i.e. her transom had not passed the Mark, and even though Mark-Room is still in force, "Room" is no longer available.)
In Scenario #3, IMO, RRS 18.1(b) turns-off RRS 18 somewhere around #5+ .. but clearly (IMO) at #6.5. So I would say that Yellow's MR entitlement disappears somewhere between #5-#6.5 .. so after that and after Cyan gybed, questions of room and mark-room are moot.
After #6.5, Cyan was on port, altered course and sailed toward and into Yellow on starboard without room-entitlement under any rule. If there was damage or injury, the question of whether or not Yellow broke RRS14 or if she did, was exonerated under RRS 43.1(c,) needs to be determined. Cyan clearly breaks RRS 14(a) and is not exonerated under any RRS 43.1 rule.
With respect to Scenario 1, at P3, Yellow is NOT sailing her Proper Course to the Mark so she is no longer entitled to Room. She has broken RRS10, and because outside her "Room" entitlement, she will not be exonerated under RRS43
The "lesson" (if you want to call it that) I'm trying to convey is how you are describing it can lead you and others down the wrong path.
Let's look at Case 118 for the proper way to describe it. In Case 118, though the boats are not on opposite tacks as you drew your Scenario 1, the rules apply the same because they share these key elements:
The boats were overlapped when the first of them reached the zone
The inside-overlapped boat entitled to MR is required to keep-clear of the outside boat, which has ROW
The inside boat is not ROW and does not need to gybe at the mark, so RRS 18.4 does not apply.
Here's how I would describe it, using Case 118's language as a starting point. (Note, that in both my and Case 118's description, the term "proper course" is not used again once the 'sail close to the mark' "test" is applied and satisfied)
In order to sail the course, [from position 1] it was necessary for UM8 [Yellow] to change course from a broad reach [downwind run] to a close-hauled course as she rounded the mark. Therefore, her proper course was to sail close to the mark at some point in her turn. Because UM8 [Yellow] was entitled to mark-room, she was entitled to room, as defined by the definition Mark-Room,
to sail to the mark,
to round the mark on the required side, and
to leave it astern.
‘Room’ in the phrase ‘room to sail to the mark’ means space to sail promptly in a seamanlike way to a position close to, and on the required side of, the mark.
[below is my description, departing from Case 118 to incorporate your Scenario 1 facts]
Between positions 1 and 3, Blue gave Yellow plenty of space to sail promptly to a position close to the mark on its proper side, which included ample space for Yellow to continue to keep-clear of Blue (a component of Yellow's room within mark-room is space to continue to comply with her obligations under RRS 10). Therefore, Blue did not break RRS 18.2(a)(1).
Also, it is noted that between positions 1-3, Blue did not alter course. Therefore RRS 16.1 did not apply and did not convey a separate room entitlement to Yellow to keep clear of Blue. Yellow's only room entitlement from positions 1-3 was through mark-room.
When Yellow altered course toward Blue between positions 1 and 3, and subsequently made contact with Blue (eventually forcing Blue to alter course away from Yellow after contact at position 3), Yellow broke RRS 10. It was reasonably possible for Yellow to avoid the contact so Yellow also broke RRS 14(a). Yellow was not entitled to more space than that amply given by Blue (to sail to the mark on the proper side and keep clear of Blue) and therefore Yellow was not sailing within the MR she was entitled to at position 3 when contact occurred. Yellow is not exonerated under RRS 43.1(b)/(c) for breaking RRS 10 and 14.
Regarding Blue's contact with Yellow, it was not reasonably possible for Blue, the right-of-way boat, to avoid contact with Yellow when it became clear that Yellow was not keeping clear, and therefore Blue did not break RRS 14(a). There was no reason for Blue to expect that Yellow would sail to such a high angle by-the-lee toward her while Blue was giving Yellow such ample space to keep clear of Blue and sail promptly to the mark.
DSQ Yellow for breaking RRS 11 and RRS 14.
Also, please read US20 (PS: and US3) for a similar discussion.
In scenario 3 i do not think the mark has been left astern so 18 applies and the boat has mark room. She is however sailing outside the mark room she is entitled to so cannot be exonerated for rule breaches. She has to sail a proper course to the next mark and cannot luff as she did. At this point her proper course is not to sail close to the mark so she cannot do so. She has to sail her proper course. The rule 18 gives you a defence (expneration) within its relms but it is not an offansensive weapon, as the boat is using it here.
Mike, I think Appeal US3 also supports my conclusion that RRS 18 ceases to apply somewhere between position 5+ to position 6.5 in Stewart's Scenario 3.
In the pic below from US3, RRS 18 ceases to apply "By position 4 .." .. and US3's position 4 roughly approximates Scenario 3's position 5 relative to the mark and the relative direction to the next mark (only the scenarios are mirrored/flipped along a horizontal and Yellow must KC of Blue by RRS 10 instead of RRS 11 after position 6.5)
Here is the pic and the discussion from US3
"[...] Rule 43.1(b) only exonerates W if she breaks 11 while sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled. Between positions 1 and 4, L gave W mark-room; therefore, L did not break rule 18.2(a)(1). By position 4, L had given W mark-room; therefore rule 18 no longer applied (see rule 18.1(b)). When W then failed to keep clear, she broke rule 11 and is not exonerated for that breach."
Michael's statement "She has to sail her proper course." is misleading.
There is no rule that requires that a boat sail her proper course. There are rules where the proper course is a boundary, e.g. RRS 17 & 18.4 in fleet racing and RRS 18.3 in match racing, but no requirement that a boat actually sail that course.
In the context of mark room, whether a boat is entitled to 'sail to the mark' is dependent on whether her proper course would take her close to it. Her proper course is dependent on where she is at any instant and where the mark is relative to her proper course at that instant.
If her proper course does not take her close to the mark, then she is not entitled to the exoneration that comes while sailing 'to the mark'.
I agree except in those special cases there is no need to saila proper course. Here when looking for exoneration, if you are sailing, as here above a proper course. it is hard to say you are sailing within the mark room you are entitled to. Here using the proper course test, we know you are no longer allowed to sail to the mark. You are / have rounded. What mark room is left? Here you seem to have no prorection at all, but 18 still applies as you have not yet left the mark astern because of your a course.
Its a bit more than that though. The only mention of proper course in RRS 18 is as a test of rule applicability "Room to sail to the Mark when her Proper Course is to sail close to it". Mark room is not room to sail a proper course, it is room to sail to the mark. It seems to me that if her Proper Course somehow did not involve sailing to the mark her entitlement to room would not encompass that Proper Course. Isn't this the territory of US Appeal 20?
With rule changes etc since this may have been decided, I am not sure the editing has kept up with the rules.
We have discussed proper course and going to the mark, that is clear.
We are left with. Does 18 apply Does the boat getting mark room get exonerated.
I do not think in scenario 3 the mark is ever left astern (as it clearly is in the appeal) so 18 still applies.
This under the current definition of mark room leaves, "round or pass" I just do not know we have no guidance on this. What we do have are problems with the wording.
In team racing in setting a mark trap at mark 4 the leeward row boat often takes a windward boat to the edge of the zone by lifting without leaving the zone. It then gybes and claims it's right to sail to the mark over starboard boats approaching it. This relies on an interpretation of leaving the mark astern, which as the boat has not passed it we assume it has not done as it has not yet rounded it.
Two things here it is a reach on port to mark 4 ((not as in our example 3) and if they are below the mark, if they sail above their proper course ( yes that again, and corridor) theydo not get exoneration in shutting the door, and as a row when both are on port are subject to rrs 16 see case book.
So in scenario 3 I see 18 still applying, but we have to check the protections 18 can give.
Here not to sail to the mark, so as before we are left with rounding it. You can do this by sailing the course to the next mark (note the words proper course removed). If like theteam racing you vary from this there is no exoneration.
Here unlike team racing it is not 16 as you are on port and sailing above the necessary course to the next mark and the other boat on starboard so.
18 applies, no exoneration as you a you are sailing outside the mark room to which you are entitled.
Thanks for the heads up on Case 75 mentioning the corridor, and this being removed in the recent edit. It was a useful tool to describe what mark room was, but with this change, is it still useful, with no case backup, or do we need to used different wording? Interesting, and again a problem caused by WS. I suppose now you can "sail to the mark, so you can round it in a seamanlike manner" but not sail a tactical or proper course rounding. This assumes that your proper course is to sail close to the mark.
Mike ... I think it's good that "corridor" was removed as, IMO, the concept was sometimes applied inappropriately (long threads about that many times .. so not to repeat here). For myself, I changed how I looked at it and used it over the years to be much more judicious when I said "corridor" in the end.
I like mixing a cocktail with equal parts Case 75, Case 113, US 3 and US 20. Taken together I think it makes a very complete profile.
Pour that mix into a highball and garnish with a healthy slice of the new US130 ...
I think if one drinks that concoction a few times .. just cycling through them ... it comes into focus. At least that's helped me quite a bit.
I am at a loss as to yout corridor commends when you effectifly apply it in your reqsoning.
In this scenario, yellow took more room that she was entitled to take. She broke rule 10 and 18. If there is damage or injury, I might also DSQ Blue if we determined that it was possible for her to avoid the contact as soon as she realized that yellow was not going to avoid the collision. But if no damage or injury occurred, exonerate Blue for breaking rule 14.
In scenario 2, yellow enters clear ahead. She is entitled to room to round as she normally would (her proper course), which would include a "wide and tight rounding." She never left the zone so rule 18 is still in effect. Blue had no right to go in there and is disqualified. Rule 18 puts a limitation of the starboard boat. She must give yellow room to round and she did not. DSQ Blue for breaking rule 18 and 14.
This collision looks like it could cause damage. Yellow also broke rule 14 since it certainly appears that she had a way to avoid the collision. She is exonerated if there is no damage or injury, but not if there is.
For the last scenario, rule 18 turns off once room has been given. At position 5, yellow has left the mark clear astern. She is not entitled to room to gybe when rounding the windward mark. (This scenario is addressed in case US 130, as Angelo pointed out). Yellow breaks rule 10. Same issues around rule 14 could apply. The one caveat here is that we may find that once it was obvious that yellow was not going to keep clear, blue may not have been able to keep clear by anything but a crash gybe--not a seamanlike maneuver. If we found that to be the case, then blue didn't break rule 14 and needs no exoneration (see case 87 )
Interestingly, i am not sure the boat in 3 has left the mark astern.
I think 18 still applies, but she is just sailing outside the mark room she is entitled to.
I look at the way match racing deals with leaving the mark astern to consider this.
Therefore 18.1(b) turns off 18 at that time.
I am a little concerned by one thing Anthony said: "In this scenario, yellow took more room that she was entitled to take. She broke rule 10 and 18." There is no rule prohibiting a boat from taking more room then she is entitled to, and a boat entitled to mark-room cannot break rule 18 (except rule 18.4, which doesn't apply in any of Stewart's scenarios). Anthony is correct in saying that the inside boat breaks rule 10. In general, a boat that takes too much room can only be disqualified if she breaks another rule, commonly a rule of Section A of Part 2 of the RRS, or rule 17.
... and corridors are no longer mentioned in Case 75 (the instigator of the use of the term I think).
With respect to my 3rd scenario, I am looking for support that at P7 (even if Mark-Room had not ended per definition "c)" at P5 - i.e. her transom had not passed the Mark, and even though Mark-Room is still in force, "Room" is no longer available.) Yellow's Proper Course is to sail to the next Mark, not to the shown Mark (even if she still has Mark-Room) because it is not her Proper Course to sail close to it, so she is not entitled to Room, so if/when she breaks R10 at P8 (and maybe R16.1 too) then she will not be exonerated by R43.
With respect to Scenario 1, at P3, Yellow is NOT sailing her Proper Course to the Mark so she is no longer entitled to Room. She has broken RRS10, and because outside her "Room" entitlement, she will not be exonerated under RRS43.
I suggest that, from moment to moment, the course of a boat with Mark-Room must be her Proper Course to sail close to the Mark - otherwise she does not have Room and if she then infringes a Rule, she will not be exonerated.
(I think "Grasshopper" is correctly interpreting the "Master's" lesson? )
In Scenario #3, IMO, RRS 18.1(b) turns-off RRS 18 somewhere around #5+ .. but clearly (IMO) at #6.5. So I would say that Yellow's MR entitlement disappears somewhere between #5-#6.5 .. so after that and after Cyan gybed, questions of room and mark-room are moot.
After #6.5, Cyan was on port, altered course and sailed toward and into Yellow on starboard without room-entitlement under any rule. If there was damage or injury, the question of whether or not Yellow broke RRS14 or if she did, was exonerated under RRS 43.1(c,) needs to be determined. Cyan clearly breaks RRS 14(a) and is not exonerated under any RRS 43.1 rule.
The "lesson" (if you want to call it that) I'm trying to convey is how you are describing it can lead you and others down the wrong path.
Let's look at Case 118 for the proper way to describe it. In Case 118, though the boats are not on opposite tacks as you drew your Scenario 1, the rules apply the same because they share these key elements:
Here's how I would describe it, using Case 118's language as a starting point. (Note, that in both my and Case 118's description, the term "proper course" is not used again once the 'sail close to the mark' "test" is applied and satisfied)
Also, please read US20 (PS: and US3) for a similar discussion.
She is however sailing outside the mark room she is entitled to so cannot be exonerated for rule breaches.
She has to sail a proper course to the next mark and cannot luff as she did.
At this point her proper course is not to sail close to the mark so she cannot do so. She has to sail her proper course.
The rule 18 gives you a defence (expneration) within its relms but it is not an offansensive weapon, as the boat is using it here.
In the pic below from US3, RRS 18 ceases to apply "By position 4 .." .. and US3's position 4 roughly approximates Scenario 3's position 5 relative to the mark and the relative direction to the next mark (only the scenarios are mirrored/flipped along a horizontal and Yellow must KC of Blue by RRS 10 instead of RRS 11 after position 6.5)
Here is the pic and the discussion from US3
There is no rule that requires that a boat sail her proper course. There are rules where the proper course is a boundary, e.g. RRS 17 & 18.4 in fleet racing and RRS 18.3 in match racing, but no requirement that a boat actually sail that course.
In the context of mark room, whether a boat is entitled to 'sail to the mark' is dependent on whether her proper course would take her close to it. Her proper course is dependent on where she is at any instant and where the mark is relative to her proper course at that instant.
If her proper course does not take her close to the mark, then she is not entitled to the exoneration that comes while sailing 'to the mark'.
Here when looking for exoneration, if you are sailing, as here above a proper course. it is hard to say you are sailing within the mark room you are entitled to.
Here using the proper course test, we know you are no longer allowed to sail to the mark.
You are / have rounded. What mark room is left?
Here you seem to have no prorection at all, but 18 still applies as you have not yet left the mark astern because of your a course.
I agree with the USA appeal at the bottom mark.
Us 3.
With rule changes etc since this may have been decided, I am not sure the editing has kept up with the rules.
We have discussed proper course and going to the mark, that is clear.
We are left with.
Does 18 apply
Does the boat getting mark room get exonerated.
I do not think in scenario 3 the mark is ever left astern (as it clearly is in the appeal) so 18 still applies.
This under the current definition of mark room leaves, "round or pass" I just do not know we have no guidance on this. What we do have are problems with the wording.
In team racing in setting a mark trap at mark 4 the leeward row boat often takes a windward boat to the edge of the zone by lifting without leaving the zone. It then gybes and claims it's right to sail to the mark over starboard boats approaching it. This relies on an interpretation of leaving the mark astern, which as the boat has not passed it we assume it has not done as it has not yet rounded it.
Two things here it is a reach on port to mark 4 ((not as in our example 3) and if they are below the mark, if they sail above their proper course ( yes that again, and corridor) theydo not get exoneration in shutting the door, and as a row when both are on port are subject to rrs 16 see case book.
So in scenario 3 I see 18 still applying, but we have to check the protections 18 can give.
Here not to sail to the mark, so as before we are left with rounding it. You can do this by sailing the course to the next mark (note the words proper course removed). If like theteam racing you vary from this there is no exoneration.
Here unlike team racing it is not 16 as you are on port and sailing above the necessary course to the next mark and the other boat on starboard so.
18 applies, no exoneration as you a you are sailing outside the mark room to which you are entitled.
It was a useful tool to describe what mark room was, but with this change, is it still useful, with no case backup, or do we need to used different wording?
Interesting, and again a problem caused by WS.
I suppose now you can "sail to the mark, so you can round it in a seamanlike manner" but not sail a tactical or proper course rounding.
This assumes that your proper course is to sail close to the mark.
I like mixing a cocktail with equal parts Case 75, Case 113, US 3 and US 20. Taken together I think it makes a very complete profile.
Pour that mix into a highball and garnish with a healthy slice of the new US130 ...
I think if one drinks that concoction a few times .. just cycling through them ... it comes into focus. At least that's helped me quite a bit.