Why penalty for revoke?

[Stig Holmquist]

The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".

So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?

At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.

One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

Stig Holmquist

[Dave Flower]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

IMHO you are right, I know that David Stevenson does not agree,
believing that the penalty causes players to be more careful.

Incidently, the penalty for a revoke not won by the offending side is
not two tricks, but one trick (and then only if the offending side won
a trick after the revoke); the Director should adjust the score if the
penalty is unduly lenient (ie The revoke cost the non-offending side
more than one trick)

Dave Flower

[Nick France]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

IMHO you are right, I know that David Stevenson does not agree,
believing that the penalty causes players to be more careful.
Incidently, the penalty for a revoke not won by the offending side is
not two tricks, but one trick (and then only if the offending side won
a trick after the revoke); the Director should adjust the score if the
penalty is unduly lenient (ie The revoke cost the non-offending side
more than one trick)
Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.

In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.

Nick France

[thg]

Post by Nick France
The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.

If the only objective was to restore equity, a revoke would never
cost, would it? And, some less than scrupulous players might mistake
this for a lack of incentive not to revoke. If they don't catch me, I
get my good result; if they do catch me, I get the result I should
have gotten. Win; not lose.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by thg

Post by Nick France
The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.

If the only objective was to restore equity, a revoke would never
cost, would it? And, some less than scrupulous players might mistake
this for a lack of incentive not to revoke. If they don't catch me, I
get my good result; if they do catch me, I get the result I should
have gotten.

It's *not* quite that simple, not it declarer would later have a guess
in the play. If there's an adjustment, the Laws say to figure out
what the most likely result would have been without the revoke, which
more or less assumes declarer would have guessed right. So yes, the
revoke could cost even if equity were the only objective. But you're
right, in a large number of cases, it wouldn't.

Also, I believe that some of those who have proposed changing the Law
have also suggested imposing a procedural penalty on the revoker.
That *would* of course make it cost.

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

Post by thg

Post by Nick France
The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.

If the only objective was to restore equity, a revoke would never
cost, would it? And, some less than scrupulous players might mistake
this for a lack of incentive not to revoke. If they don't catch me, I
get my good result; if they do catch me, I get the result I should
have gotten. Win; not lose.

Well put. No revoke penalties would definitely increase the number of
revokes.

[Dave Flower]

Post by thg

Post by Nick France
The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.

If the only objective was to restore equity, a revoke would never
cost, would it? �And, some less than scrupulous players might mistake
this for a lack of incentive not to revoke. �If they don't catch me, I
get my good result; if they do catch me, I get the result I should
have gotten. �Win; not lose.

� �Well put. �No revoke penalties would definitely increase the number of
revokes.
--
David Stevenson � � � � � Bridge � � �RTFLB � � � Cats � � � Railways
Liverpool, England, UK � �Fax: [phone] � � � �ICQ: �20039682
� � � � � � � � � � � � � �Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.

L64C instructs the Director to transfer further tricks is the non-
offending side has been insufficiently compensated, and, although the
Law does not state this, I suspect that most Directors would give the
benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. This should be
sufficient to discourage revokes.

Dave Flower

[Rob Morris]

Post by Dave Flower
I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.

I'm not sure about that. There are several laws which have fairly
arbitrary effects - for example, the ones that silence partner during
the auction.

Let's say your LHO opens a 1D fert and you overcall out of turn.
Partner is silenced holding a 27-count and you get a much worse score
than if the transgression had not occurred.

Likewise telling someone they have to play a penalty card is pretty
arbitrary - why not let them play what they like and just have the card
be unauthorised information to partner?

Maybe in a hundred years the Laws will always have play continue for all
irregularities - all you need is the UI laws and directors determined to
restore equity. I don't know whether it will make the game better or
worse. It will certainly mean more work for directors.

:-)

[Dave Flower]

Post by Dave Flower
I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.

I'm not sure about that. �There are several laws which have fairly
arbitrary effects - for example, the ones that silence partner during
the auction.
Let's say your LHO opens a 1D fert and you overcall out of turn.
Partner is silenced holding a 27-count and you get a much worse score
than if the transgression had not occurred.
Likewise telling someone they have to play a penalty card is pretty
arbitrary - why not let them play what they like and just have the card
be unauthorised information to partner?
Maybe in a hundred years the Laws will always have play continue for all
irregularities - all you need is the UI laws and directors determined to
restore equity. �I don't know whether it will make the game better or
worse. �It will certainly mean more work for directors.
:-)
--
Rob Morris
arr em four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk

I agree that there are laws that have arbitrary effects, but they do
not sanction a result worse than could possibly have occurred absent
the transgression.

For example, you may be barred from doubling 7NT, where you are on
lead with an ace - but defending 7NT doubled is still a possible
outcome, whereas, if your partner revokes on your opening lead, no
legal continuation would allow the contract to make

Dave Flower

[Chris]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by thg

Post by Nick France
The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.

If the only objective was to restore equity, a revoke would never
cost, would it? And, some less than scrupulous players might mistake
this for a lack of incentive not to revoke. If they don't catch me, I
get my good result; if they do catch me, I get the result I should
have gotten. Win; not lose.

Well put. No revoke penalties would definitely increase the number of
revokes.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: [phone] ICQ: 20039682
Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.
L64C instructs the Director to transfer further tricks is the non-
offending side has been insufficiently compensated, and, although the
Law does not state this, I suspect that most Directors would give the
benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. This should be
sufficient to discourage revokes.

Forget the legal aspect for a moment. A revoke is a misplay. I don't
see anything wrong with your opponents getting a windfall from your
misplay. They get a windfall when you misguess a queen or fail to
find a squeeze that would have made your contract cold.

If you want a legal reason, there needs to be some negative vigorish
to the revoke, to make up for the chance that the opposing side will
not notice. And sometimes they won't, especially when the last few
tricks are conceded by one side without showing their hand[s]. I
insist on seeing the cards in a concession or an "obvious" claim, but
I know this is unusual, because several experts seem to take offense
at that. Some of them face their hand for too short a period of time
to see and then turn it over and stuff it back in the board.

Christopher Monsour

[Mark Brader]

Post by Dave Flower
I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.

The law against revoking is also the only one that "takes precedence
over all other requirements of these Laws." I have no problem with
the penalties for breaking it being equally special.

[Dave Flower]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Dave Flower
I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.

The law against revoking is also the only one that "takes precedence
over all other requirements of these Laws." �I have no problem with
the penalties for breaking it being equally special.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto � � � � � � � �"Logic is logic. �That's all I say."

I accept that there are players out there who would revoke
deliberately, and for them a 1 or 2 trick penalty is totally
insufficient, something involving boiling oil being more appropriate.

For the rest of us, I do not believe that the size of the penalty ever
prevents a revoke. The embarrassment of a director call is as big a,
if not a bigger deterrent. Anyway, I believe deterrents never work
against inadvertant infractions.

Dave Flower

[a***@hotmail.com]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Dave Flower
I have never said that a revoke should not be penalised; however,
procedural penalties and the like excepted, the revoke law is the only
law that sanctions a score worse than could possibly have occurred had
the transgression not occurred.

The law against revoking is also the only one that "takes precedence
over all other requirements of these Laws." �I have no problem with
the penalties for breaking it being equally special.

What is curious is that the admonition is but gibberish. Consider
what happens when a player indeed revokes. It either is corrected ,
or, it is not corrected. For the instances when revokes are not
corrected the admonition can hardly be said to take precedence. There
are indeed obligations that unilaterally take precedence- such as to
not create UI [L73B] and to correct MI [L20F4,5].

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader, Toronto � � � � � � � �"Logic is logic. �That's all I say."

I accept that there are players out there who would revoke
deliberately, and for them a 1 or 2 trick penalty is totally
insufficient, something involving boiling oil being more appropriate.
For the rest of us, I do not believe that the size of the penalty ever
prevents a revoke. The embarrassment of a director call is as big a,
if not a bigger deterrent. Anyway, I believe deterrents never work
against inadvertant infractions.
Dave Flower

As to the assertion that substantial penalties for revokes do not
prevent revokes- it holds no water. Billions of revokes are prevented
each year when players remember the consequences of a revoke and
thereby exercise enough care to avoid revoking. Conversely, revokes
are encouraged significantly [and occur in the billions every year] by
having a substantial number of situations where a revoke is not
penalized, most notably L48A.

regards
axman

[blackshoe]

There
are indeed obligations that unilaterally take precedence-  such as to
not create UI [L73B] and to correct MI [L20F4,5].

Law 73B doesn't say what you seem to think it says. That law does not
prohibit the creation of UI, it prohibits *communication* via UI. IOW,
it prohibits *use* of UI.

As to the assertion that substantial penalties for revokes do not
prevent revokes- it holds no water.  Billions of revokes are prevented
each year when players remember the consequences of a revoke and
thereby exercise enough care to avoid revoking. Conversely, revokes
are encouraged significantly [and occur in the billions every year] by
having a substantial number of situations where a revoke is not
penalized, most notably L48A.

Law 48A has nothing to do with revokes. Not, at least, until Law 45C2
comes into play. The restriction on exposing a card is more severe for
a defender than for declarer simply because there are two defenders,
and exposure conveys information to another player of the same side.
Declarer is not in that situation.

[a***@hotmail.com]

Post by blackshoe

There
are indeed obligations that unilaterally take precedence- �such as to
not create UI [L73B] and to correct MI [L20F4,5].

Law 73B doesn't say what you seem to think it says. That law does not
prohibit the creation of UI, it prohibits *communication* via UI. IOW,
it prohibits *use* of UI.

As to the assertion that substantial penalties for revokes do not
prevent revokes- it holds no water. �Billions of revokes are prevented
each year when players remember the consequences of a revoke and
thereby exercise enough care to avoid revoking. Conversely, revokes
are encouraged significantly [and occur in the billions every year] by
having a substantial number of situations where a revoke is not
penalized, most notably L48A.

Law 48A has nothing to do with revokes.

Actually, this is not so. When the declaring side corrects its revoke
[a] he has played more than one card to the trick, albeit after
withdrawing a card and [b] he does so without penalty aka PC while
[c] he may have inferences from what the opponents have done that he
wouldn't have absent his withdrawing a card and playing a different
one.

regards
axman

Post by blackshoe
Not, at least, until Law 45C2
comes into play. The restriction on exposing a card is more severe for
a defender than for declarer simply because there are two defenders,
and exposure conveys information to another player of the same side.
Declarer is not in that situation.

[blackshoe]

Actually, this is not so.  When the declaring side corrects its revoke
[a] he has played more than one card to the trick, albeit after
withdrawing a card and [b] he does so without penalty aka PC  while
[c] he may have inferences from what the opponents have done that he
wouldn't have absent his withdrawing a card and playing a different
one.

Read Law 16D.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by a***@hotmail.com
As to the assertion that substantial penalties for revokes do not
prevent revokes- it holds no water. Billions of revokes are prevented
each year when players remember the consequences of a revoke and
thereby exercise enough care to avoid revoking.

That's especially the case, I would think, when it turns a win in a
Swiss match into a loss, and you have to tell your teammates that you
cost the match because of your inability to follow suit. I'd think
that would be one heck of a deterrent.

-- Adam

[Bob]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by a***@hotmail.com
As to the assertion that substantial penalties for revokes do not
prevent revokes- it holds no water. Billions of revokes are prevented
each year when players remember the consequences of a revoke and
thereby exercise enough care to avoid revoking.

That's especially the case, I would think, when it turns a win in a
Swiss match into a loss, and you have to tell your teammates that you
cost the match because of your inability to follow suit. I'd think
that would be one heck of a deterrent.
-- Adam

Probably not. Again, punishments primarily have their effect on
intentional behaviors.

If the penalty for a revoke at a club was to cut off a finger, then
there will be no revokes at the club. The effect will be on
intentional behavior -- no one will play at the club.

If players are forced to play at this club, then the effect will still
be on intentional behavior. They will double check every play to make
sure it isn't a revoke. Play will be tediously slow and no one will
enjoy the game. The penalty will also make them more nervous, so the
penalty might actually increase revokes. In any case, you will still
have revokes.

If any revoke, established or not, led to an automatic bottom, this
probably will not have any effect on the frequency of unintentional
revokes. The reasoning is this. The amount of time and effort needed
to actually reduce revokes is so large and onerous, and it's effect so
small, that it would not be worth doing.

If you make the penalty for revoke too small, and the chance of non-
rectification too large, then players have an incentive to revoke.
Unethical players might intentionally revoke in this situation. There
are very few such situations in the current laws, so you don't even
hear about many intentional revokes (plus most players are ethical).

[David Stevenson]

Post by Bob
Probably not. Again, punishments primarily have their effect on
intentional behaviors.
If the penalty for a revoke at a club was to cut off a finger, then
there will be no revokes at the club. The effect will be on
intentional behavior -- no one will play at the club.
If players are forced to play at this club, then the effect will still
be on intentional behavior. They will double check every play to make
sure it isn't a revoke. Play will be tediously slow and no one will
enjoy the game. The penalty will also make them more nervous, so the
penalty might actually increase revokes. In any case, you will still
have revokes.
If any revoke, established or not, led to an automatic bottom, this
probably will not have any effect on the frequency of unintentional
revokes. The reasoning is this. The amount of time and effort needed
to actually reduce revokes is so large and onerous, and it's effect so
small, that it would not be worth doing.
If you make the penalty for revoke too small, and the chance of non-
rectification too large, then players have an incentive to revoke.
Unethical players might intentionally revoke in this situation. There
are very few such situations in the current laws, so you don't even
hear about many intentional revokes (plus most players are ethical).

Just to repeat, I do not think this is correct. There are a lot of
players who would not intentionally revoke, but would take less trouble
if there was no penalty. It is not intentional revokes that are the
main ones that would increases, but the lack of care revokes.

You see this with the fact that a lot, possibly a majority, of poor
club players will use UI quite a lot. They would not deliberately
cheat, but they just take no care.

If players who used UI in the smallest degree lost a penalty trick
whenever they did, the use of UI would decrease significantly.

[Stig Holmquist]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:21:16 -0800 (PST), Nick France

Post by Nick France

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

IMHO you are right, I know that David Stevenson does not agree,
believing that the penalty causes players to be more careful.
Incidently, the penalty for a revoke not won by the offending side is
not two tricks, but one trick (and then only if the offending side won
a trick after the revoke); the Director should adjust the score if the
penalty is unduly lenient (ie The revoke cost the non-offending side
more than one trick)
Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.
Nick France

When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

Trying to win by complaining about an innocent and inconsequential
mistake shows poor sportsmanship. Only small, narrow and greedy minds
do that. They treat bridge as a cut-throat game, in which winning by
any means is the rule. This attitude is one reason why the game has
problems attracting and holding players. Better players would ssimply
tell the offender to be more careful and suggest the problem could
have been avoided if dummy had asked declarer if he has a void.

A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

Stig

[BBO expert]

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance.

Why? That's an interesting opinion, but most of us feel that you should win
by following the rules of the game, and if you break the rules, that's just
too bad for you.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Trying to win by complaining about an innocent and inconsequential
mistake shows poor sportsmanship.

otoh, winning by demanding that you show a reasonable degree of care as you
play is just expecting _you_ to show good sportsmanship.

Post by Stig Holmquist
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

No, a two trick penalty for that error is _wrong_.

[blackshoe]

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

When attention has been drawn to an irregularity at the table, all
four players are obligated to call the director. The purpose of
calling is not to complain, or because one has "suffered a clear
damage", but to ensure that the rights of all the contestants at the
table are protected. As for annoyance, Law 74A2 clearly states that
failure to carefully avoid an action that may annoy another player is
a breach of law. Granted, it would take a pretty severe breach to
result in any penalty, but the objective judge here is the TD, not the
players, and certainly not the alleged offender.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Trying to win by complaining about an innocent and inconsequential
mistake shows poor sportsmanship.

Trying to avoid the consequences of one's actions by whining about
legitimate application of the rules of the game shows poor
sportsmanship.

Post by Stig Holmquist
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

You don't get to make the rules, Stig. If you want to do that, work
your way onto the WBF Laws Committee.

[David Stevenson]

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

Rubbish. When something goes wrong you call the TD: you are trying to
spoil the game for people by cutting down legitimate TD calls, and there
are too few already.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Trying to win by complaining about an innocent and inconsequential
mistake shows poor sportsmanship.

Trying to win by not following the rules and complaining because there
is a small and usually inconsequential penalty shows extremely poor
sportsmanship.

Sportsmen expect to suffer for their transgressions: unsportsmanlike
people expect to avoid doing so.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Only small, narrow and greedy minds
do that.

Sure: it takes a small, narrow and greedy mind to wish to win by
avoiding a penalty for breaking the rules.

Post by Stig Holmquist
They treat bridge as a cut-throat game, in which winning by
any means is the rule.

I agree: players who revoke but want to avoid a penalty "treat bridge
as a cut-throat game, in which winning by any means is the rule".

Post by Stig Holmquist
This attitude is one reason why the game has
problems attracting and holding players.

I agree. More players willing to accept penalties with out complaint
would make the game far better.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Better players would ssimply
tell the offender to be more careful and suggest the problem could
have been avoided if dummy had asked declarer if he has a void.

The offender should be sportsmanlike and call the TD himself so as to
pay the penalty.

Post by Stig Holmquist
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

Not being willing to pay the penalty for a mistake is unsportsmanlike,
and hurts the game of bridge.

[Steven Gibbs]

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

Rubbish. When something goes wrong you call the TD: you are trying
to spoil the game for people by cutting down legitimate TD calls, and
there are too few already.

Don't you mean "trying to spoil the game for TDs by cutting down
legitimate TD calls, and there
are too few already"?

Steven

[BBO expert]

Post by Steven Gibbs

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

Rubbish. When something goes wrong you call the TD: you are trying
to spoil the game for people by cutting down legitimate TD calls, and
there are too few already.

Don't you mean "trying to spoil the game for TDs by cutting down
legitimate TD calls, and there are too few already"?

No, I'm sure by "too few already", he's referring to the fact that a far
bigger factor on skewing scoring results than somebody getting an extra
trick for an opponent's revoke, is the fact that players routinely don't
bother to call the director when they think they know how to handle an
irregularity.

[David Stevenson]

Post by Steven Gibbs

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

Rubbish. When something goes wrong you call the TD: you are trying
to spoil the game for people by cutting down legitimate TD calls, and
there are too few already.

Don't you mean "trying to spoil the game for TDs by cutting down
legitimate TD calls, and there
are too few already"?

Of course I don't. TDs are not the customers: players are, so it is
players we worry about. But failure to call a TD causes an amazing
amount of upset, unpleasantness and unfairness.

============================================================

Post by Steven Gibbs
Punishments like the revoke penalty are going to influence intentional
behavior. Like deciding whether or not to run a red light. They have
marginal (indirect) effect on unintentional behavior, which is usually
what happens when a revoke happens.
I actually did revoke today, somehow, and the size of the penalty
(down 2 instead of making) was irrelevant.
So trying to decrease revokes by punishing them probably doesn't work.
As already noted, that is not what the laws are trying to do.

There are always more cases in real life than black or white.

If you have no revoke penalty there will be more revokes.

It will not be a question of intentional v unintentional, but a lot of
in-between. Subconcious effects, failure to exert due diligence, and a
very small number of cheats.

[Stig Holmquist]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:25 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

Rubbish. When something goes wrong you call the TD: you are trying to
spoil the game for people by cutting down legitimate TD calls, and there
are too few already.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Trying to win by complaining about an innocent and inconsequential
mistake shows poor sportsmanship.

Trying to win by not following the rules and complaining because there
is a small and usually inconsequential penalty shows extremely poor
sportsmanship.
Sportsmen expect to suffer for their transgressions: unsportsmanlike
people expect to avoid doing so.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Only small, narrow and greedy minds
do that.

Sure: it takes a small, narrow and greedy mind to wish to win by
avoiding a penalty for breaking the rules.

Post by Stig Holmquist
They treat bridge as a cut-throat game, in which winning by
any means is the rule.

I agree: players who revoke but want to avoid a penalty "treat bridge
as a cut-throat game, in which winning by any means is the rule".

Post by Stig Holmquist
This attitude is one reason why the game has
problems attracting and holding players.

I agree. More players willing to accept penalties with out complaint
would make the game far better.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Better players would ssimply
tell the offender to be more careful and suggest the problem could
have been avoided if dummy had asked declarer if he has a void.

The offender should be sportsmanlike and call the TD himself so as to
pay the penalty.

Post by Stig Holmquist
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

Not being willing to pay the penalty for a mistake is unsportsmanlike,
and hurts the game of bridge.

Your above gibberish indicates a lack of understanding of good
sportsmanship.

If you look up Law 72 about General Principles you will discover under
B3 that there is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent
infraction of a law committed by your side.

Also, under 72A3 it provided for the ability to wave a penalty, which
is further outlined under Law 81C8. That's where a fairmainded player
can demonstrate good sportsmanship. I don't care what ethics if any
prevail at the national and international level of the game. In view
of past scandals and the elaborate means used to keep cheating under
control I'm inclined to think the ethics there are no better than we
have witnessed in the finacial markets. The 11the commandment seems
to apply: Anything you get away with must be allright. Perhaps there
the prevailing spirit is : never give a sucker an even break.

But I find that spirit deplorable at the local club level, especially
when applied to novices. I wish to win by better play and not by
unearned points given away by harmless default. WE all have that
choice.

Stig

[David Stevenson]

Post by Stig Holmquist
But I find that spirit deplorable at the local club level, especially
when applied to novices. I wish to win by better play and not by
unearned points given away by harmless default. WE all have that
choice.

You want to win by unfair practices because when you revoke you do not
wish to lose by it. That is unsportsmanlike.

[campboy]

Post by Stig Holmquist
If you look up Law 72 about General Principles you will discover under
B3 that there is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent
infraction of a law committed by your side.
Also, under 72A3 it provided for the ability to wave a penalty, which
is further outlined under Law 81C8. That's where a fairmainded player
can demonstrate good sportsmanship. I don't care what ethics if any
prevail at the national and international level of the game. In view
of past scandals and the elaborate means used to keep cheating under
control I'm inclined to think the ethics there are no better than we
have witnessed in the finacial markets. The 11the commandment seems
to apply: Anything you get away with must be allright. Perhaps there
the prevailing spirit is : never give a sucker an even  break.
But I find that spirit deplorable at the local club level, especially
when applied to novices. I wish to win by better play and not by
unearned points given away by harmless default. WE all have that
choice.
Stig- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I don't know what Lawbook you are looking at. Not only does 72A3 not
exist, the principle you attribute to it is in direct conflict with
Law 10A: "Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see
Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative."

You may request that the TD waives a penalty (sorry, "rectification"),
but he may only do so if there is "cause" (81C5). For example, it
would be appropriate to ask the director to waive a revoke penalty on
the grounds that revoker is partially sighted.

You are right that it is perfectly appropriate not to point out
opponents that you have revoked (so long as the revoke was
accidental!), but should they notice it you are responsible for seeing
that the TD is called and penalty paid. It is certainly not
appropriate to seek to "get away with it" based on opponents'
ignorance of the laws.

[David Babcock]

Post by campboy
I don't know what Lawbook you are looking at

He is looking at the 1997 Laws.

Post by campboy
Not only does 72A3 not
exist, the principle you attribute to it is in direct conflict with
Law 10A: "Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see
Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative."

More to the point, the current Law 72B2 ("no obligation" etc.)
specifically mentions Law 62A as a "but see", and Law 62A requires
that a player correct a revoke if he becomes aware of it before it
becomes established (it did so in 1997 also, but Law 62A was not
specifically referenced in Law 72 then; that oversight was corrected
in 2007.)

This discussion underlines that the penalty for even an
inconsequential revoke may at least serve the purpose of giving a
player who does not know the relevant laws an incentive to correct an
unestablished revoke that he would not otherwise have had.

David

[Alan Malloy]

Stig Holmquist wrote:

[snip a bunch of the same]

Post by Stig Holmquist
But I find that spirit deplorable at the local club level, especially
when applied to novices. I wish to win by better play and not by
unearned points given away by harmless default. WE all have that
choice.
Stig

And indeed, your opponents on this hand won by playing better than you:
they were able to follow suit, and you were not. Perhaps with practice
(and some friendly rectifications from the TD!) this error will stop
harming your game.

[raija d]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:21:16 -0800 (PST), Nick France

Post by Nick France

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

IMHO you are right, I know that David Stevenson does not agree,
believing that the penalty causes players to be more careful.
Incidently, the penalty for a revoke not won by the offending side is
not two tricks, but one trick (and then only if the offending side won
a trick after the revoke); the Director should adjust the score if the
penalty is unduly lenient (ie The revoke cost the non-offending side
more than one trick)
Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The quick and simple answer would be that if the director had to try
to figure out each time what would have been the result without the
irregularity, there would be many more problems then now exist with
following the law.
In a perfect world, you would be right but this isn't a perfect world.
Nick France

When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.
Trying to win by complaining about an innocent and inconsequential
mistake shows poor sportsmanship. Only small, narrow and greedy minds
do that. They treat bridge as a cut-throat game, in which winning by
any means is the rule. This attitude is one reason why the game has
problems attracting and holding players. Better players would ssimply
tell the offender to be more careful and suggest the problem could
have been avoided if dummy had asked declarer if he has a void.
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.
Stig

Easy solution. Don't revoke.

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Stig Holmquist
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

Just a note about "harmless":

About 20 years ago, I got pulled over and ticketed for running a red
light. (I thought I could make it through while the light was still
yellow, but I misjudged.) This was at about 2 in the morning and
there were no other cars on the road, except for the police. The
officer explained to me (unsolicited) that although there weren't any
other cars on the road and therefore my infraction couldn't have
caused a problem, it was the time of night when there are sometimes
drunk drivers out there, and next time I ran a light like that, I
might get hit by an alcohol-impaired driver who drove on because his
light was green and wasn't attentive enough to notice that another car
was coming the other way. So while my infraction may have seemed
"harmless", the officer felt it was right to pull me over and give me
a ticket to help discourage me from doing the same thing again. (By
the way, that's the last ticket I've ever gotten.)

Revokes do cause harm, so it's worthwhile to discourage them.

-- Adam

[Bob]

Post by Adam Beneschan

Post by Stig Holmquist
A two trick penalty for a harmless mistake is absurd and Draconian.

About 20 years ago, I got pulled over and ticketed for running a red
light. (I thought I could make it through while the light was still
yellow, but I misjudged.) This was at about 2 in the morning and
there were no other cars on the road, except for the police. The
officer explained to me (unsolicited) that although there weren't any
other cars on the road and therefore my infraction couldn't have
caused a problem, it was the time of night when there are sometimes
drunk drivers out there, and next time I ran a light like that, I
might get hit by an alcohol-impaired driver who drove on because his
light was green and wasn't attentive enough to notice that another car
was coming the other way. So while my infraction may have seemed
"harmless", the officer felt it was right to pull me over and give me
a ticket to help discourage me from doing the same thing again. (By
the way, that's the last ticket I've ever gotten.)
Revokes do cause harm, so it's worthwhile to discourage them.

Punishments like the revoke penalty are going to influence intentional
behavior. Like deciding whether or not to run a red light. They have
marginal (indirect) effect on unintentional behavior, which is usually
what happens when a revoke happens.

I actually did revoke today, somehow, and the size of the penalty
(down 2 instead of making) was irrelevant.

So trying to decrease revokes by punishing them probably doesn't work.
As already noted, that is not what the laws are trying to do.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Stig Holmquist
When a player calls the Director to complain it should be based on
having suffered a clear damage, not just an annoyance. That would
solve the problem for the director of having to find any damage.

But it can be difficult to determine how much damage you suffered. When
a player revokes, it's likely to change the entire way you play the
hand, because you get an incorrect count.

Bridge is hardly the only game with penalties for inconsequential
infractions. Many physical sports have "off-side" penalties that apply
when a player crosses over some dividing line, even if they don't do
anything over there.

[David Babcock]

Post by Dave Flower
IMHO you are right, I know that David Stevenson does not agree,
believing that the penalty causes players to be more careful.

The penalty also gives a player who becomes aware of his revoke before
it becomes established a clear incentive to correct it. The Laws
require that he do so, of course, but there are folks who, um,
"forget" the Laws sometimes.

David (not S)

[BBO expert]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

If the facts are as you say, they shouldn't have got _two_ tricks, but one.

But just because the ACBL Encyclopedia (which would, of course, not have the
force of Law, anyway, as it isn't even a statement of ACBL policy) says the
laws are not _primarily_ designed as a punishment, does not mean that they
shouldn't punish irregularites anyway. You're reading the statement as if
it says "The Laws are not to be used as a punishment for irregularities, but
as redress for damage".

[Nick France]

Post by BBO expert

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

If the facts are as you say, they shouldn't have got _two_ tricks, but one.
But just because the ACBL Encyclopedia (which would, of course, not have the
force of Law, anyway, as it isn't even a statement of ACBL policy) says the
laws are not _primarily_ designed as a punishment, does not mean that they
shouldn't punish irregularites anyway.   You're reading the statement as if
it says "The Laws are not to be used as a punishment for irregularities, but
as redress for damage".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But actually that is what the purpose of the law is. To redress
(rectify is a better word) possible damages for an irregularities. Of
course if the Law required that for each irregularity the director had
to figure out what the result would be without the irregularity there
would be a lot more problems then now exist.

Nick France

[BBO expert]

Post by Nick France

But just because the ACBL Encyclopedia ...
says the laws are not _primarily_ designed as a punishment, does not mean
that they shouldn't punish irregularites anyway.   You're reading the
statement as if it says "The Laws are not to be used as a punishment for
irregularities, but as redress for damage".

But actually that is what the purpose of the law is. To redress
(rectify is a better word) possible damages for an irregularities.

Of course it is - and we all agreed on that - but that _doesn't_ mean the
Laws are never to be used to punish.

[Dave Flower]

Post by BBO expert

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

If the facts are as you say, they shouldn't have got _two_ tricks, but one.
But just because the ACBL Encyclopedia (which would, of course, not have the
force of Law, anyway, as it isn't even a statement of ACBL policy) says the
laws are not _primarily_ designed as a punishment, does not mean that they
shouldn't punish irregularites anyway. � You're reading the statement as if
it says "The Laws are not to be used as a punishment for irregularities, but
as redress for damage".- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well the 'Introduction to the 2007 Laws' states:

... are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities but
rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may
otherwise be damaged.

That's not the ACBL, that's the Laws

Dave Flower

[BBO expert]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by BBO expert
But just because the ACBL Encyclopedia (which would, of course, not have
the force of Law, anyway, as it isn't even a statement of ACBL policy)
says the laws are not _primarily_ designed as a punishment, does not mean
that they shouldn't punish irregularites anyway. ? You're reading the
statement as if it says "The Laws are not to be used as a punishment for
irregularities, but as redress for damage".- Hide quoted text -

... are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities but
rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may
otherwise be damaged.
That's not the ACBL, that's the Laws

Fine, it's the Law. That _still_ doesn't say that the Laws shouldn't punish
irregularities just because no damage has been caused.

[David Stevenson]

Post by Dave Flower
... are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities but
rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may
otherwise be damaged.
That's not the ACBL, that's the Laws

Sure: and the word 'primarily' is there again. It tells you the
primary purpose: it does not say that there is a secondary purpose,
which is to control the game, but there is.

[ted]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?

You took the words "primarily designed" to mean "entirely designed."
That is not the case. Revoking is considered so contrary to the spirit
of the game that it is in fact harshly punished as IMO it should be.

Post by Stig Holmquist
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

[Adam Beneschan]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?

I think Jeff Rubens has argued this way, that the Laws should be
changed to simply adjust the score and redress damage. However, Jeff
doesn't direct. Those who do direct (or at least some that I've heard
from, including John Probst) cringe at this thought, because revokes
are fairly common irregularities compared to some other types, and
requiring the Director to figure out the "most likely probable result
had the irregularity not occurred" in all cases would be an
intolerable burden. So instead, the Laws prescribe a penalty that's
easy to figure out, and an adjustment is required only in rare cases
that the penalty isn't enough.

Although some may disagree, I don't think it's a problem in the case
where a revoke gives the non-offenders an extra trick where there was
no damage. My feeling is that revokes *do* cause damage even when
they don't affect the score on that hand, because a big part of the
game is using logic to figure out what the opponents' hands are, and
when they revoke they destroy the whole process. So I have no
objection to discouraging players from paying insufficient attention
to the game---I wouldn't have a problem with an even more severe
revoke penalty. But I know others differ.

Post by Stig Holmquist
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

Yes, it was fair. Pay attention next time and don't do it again.

-- Adam

[blackshoe]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

Most revokes are inadvertent. The lawmakers are aware of that. The
purpose of the revoke law is, in part, to deter. As others have said,
abandoning this purpose would in many peoples' opinion (mine included)
have a detrimental effect on the game.

Dummy was taking tricks. Declarer revoked on one of them, which dummy
won, and then dummy won at least one other trick. Per Law 64A1, there
is a two trick penalty. Is this reasonable? Certainly, unless you wish
to argue that the law is itself unreasonable - but even if you do,
that won't change the law, and the TD must do what the law requires*.
Is it fair? Certainly - if your opponents had revoked in a similar
way, they would have received the same penalty.

While the bit you quoted, Stig, is from the 1997 laws, Dave Flower has
given us the wording in the current laws. It's much the same. However,
as others have said, "primarily designed not as punishment for ..." is
not the same thing as "never punish..."

The latest ACBL Encylopedia (6th edition, I think) contains a complete
copy of the 1997 laws as promulgated in the ACBL, so the fact that the
Encylopedia does not itself have the force of law is not relevant.

*There's even a law that says so - Law 81B2 in the current laws (and
in the 1997 laws as well).

[Stig Holmquist]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:00:15 -0800 (PST), blackshoe

Post by blackshoe

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

Most revokes are inadvertent. The lawmakers are aware of that. The
purpose of the revoke law is, in part, to deter. As others have said,
abandoning this purpose would in many peoples' opinion (mine included)
have a detrimental effect on the game.
Dummy was taking tricks. Declarer revoked on one of them, which dummy
won, and then dummy won at least one other trick. Per Law 64A1, there
is a two trick penalty. Is this reasonable? Certainly, unless you wish
to argue that the law is itself unreasonable - but even if you do,
that won't change the law, and the TD must do what the law requires*.
Is it fair? Certainly - if your opponents had revoked in a similar
way, they would have received the same penalty.
While the bit you quoted, Stig, is from the 1997 laws, Dave Flower has
given us the wording in the current laws. It's much the same. However,
as others have said, "primarily designed not as punishment for ..." is
not the same thing as "never punish..."
The latest ACBL Encylopedia (6th edition, I think) contains a complete
copy of the 1997 laws as promulgated in the ACBL, so the fact that the
Encylopedia does not itself have the force of law is not relevant.
*There's even a law that says so - Law 81B2 in the current laws (and
in the 1997 laws as well).

Do you think Draconian laws should be applied to novice players at
non-sactioned club games, and if not, where should it starrt?

Stig

[blackshoe]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:00:15 -0800 (PST), blackshoe

Post by blackshoe

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

Most revokes are inadvertent. The lawmakers are aware of that. The
purpose of the revoke law is, in part, to deter. As others have said,
abandoning this purpose would in many peoples' opinion (mine included)
have a detrimental effect on the game.
Dummy was taking tricks. Declarer revoked on one of them, which dummy
won, and then dummy won at least one other trick. Per Law 64A1, there
is a two trick penalty. Is this reasonable? Certainly, unless you wish
to argue that the law is itself unreasonable - but even if you do,
that won't change the law, and the TD must do what the law requires*.
Is it fair? Certainly - if your opponents had revoked in a similar
way, they would have received the same penalty.
While the bit you quoted, Stig, is from the 1997 laws, Dave Flower has
given us the wording in the current laws. It's much the same. However,
as others have said, "primarily designed not as punishment for ..." is
not the same thing as "never punish..."
The latest ACBL Encylopedia (6th edition, I think) contains a complete
copy of the 1997 laws as promulgated in the ACBL, so the fact that the
Encylopedia does not itself have the force of law is not relevant.
*There's even a law that says so - Law 81B2 in the current laws (and
in the 1997 laws as well).

Do you think Draconian laws should be applied to novice players at
non-sactioned club games, and if not, where should it starrt?

I think, for starters, that characterizing the laws as "Draconian" is
subjective and generally counter productive. So let's drop that
characterization, please. Second, as far as I know most club games in
the US *are* sanctioned, and one of the requirements of that sanction
is that the game follow the laws. Third, I would say that while
novices need to be cut a little slack, letting them get away with
violating the laws when they're starting out is doing them a
disservice that will stand them in poor stead later in their bridge
careers.

All that said, if a bunch of novices want to get together and make up
their own non-sanctioned game, and their own rules, that's their
privilege. But they need to make sure that all the players (not the
mention the director) are aware what rules (if any) are to apply.

[BBO expert]

Post by Stig Holmquist
Do you think Draconian laws should be applied to novice players at
non-sactioned club games, and if not, where should it starrt?

At "non-sanctioned" club games, they can do anything they want

I fail to see how applying a 1-trick penalty for a revoke - even when there
was absolutely no damage - can be seen as "draconian". My experience is
that novices are so embarrassed to find that they've revoked, that when it
turns out its only one trick, they're grateful.

[v***@hotmail.com]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

The top players rarely revoke. It's mostly inexperienced players
who revoke with high frequency. Many players want to win by
any means possible.
Online bridge is superior in this regard. No revokes. No bids
out of turn. No insufficient bids.
I've stopped calling opponents on revokes. But if an expert
ever revoked against me. DIRECTOR! Still waiting.

[BBO expert]

Post by v***@hotmail.com
The top players rarely revoke. It's mostly inexperienced players
who revoke with high frequency.

LOL. NOBODY revokes with high frequency. But the most advanced players at
my clubs are just as likely to revoke as the C players.

Post by v***@hotmail.com
Many players want to win by any means possible.

And those are almost invariably "B" players.

[Sven Pran]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

This ruling was incorrect both under the 1997 laws and under the current
laws.

Under the 1997 laws the "penalty" should be one trick because the offender
did not win the revoke trick nor any subsequent trick with a card he could
legally have played to the revoke trick (but still won at least one
subsequent trick).

Under the current laws the "rectification" should be one trick simply
because the offender did not win the revoke trick (but won at least one
subsequent trick).

Note that Declarer and Dummy are two different players for the purpose of
applying the revoke laws.

The main reason for having a standard rectification on revokes is to have as
many revoke situations as possible rectified in an automatic way without
being unreasonable to the offending side. And a one-trick rectification in
the uncommon case where a revoke really had no effect although the offender
won subsequent trick(s) can hardly be considered unreasonable? (Law 64C
protects the non-offending side against insufficient compensation for damage
caused by a revoke.).

regards Sven

[David Stevenson]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is reasonable
that you should be penalised. Quoting the Scope of the 1997 Laws doe
snot change this: some penalties are given. Have you considered the
word "primarily"?

It is the same as any other sport or mindsport: the way to avoid being
penalised is to follow the rules.

[v***@hotmail.com]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

   You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is reasonable
that you should be penalised.  Quoting the Scope of the 1997 Laws doe
snot change this: some penalties are given.  Have you considered the
word "primarily"?
--
David Stevenson           Bridge      RTFLB       Cats       Railways
Liverpool, England, UK    Fax: [phone]        ICQ:  20039682
                           Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

Penalize the revoke. But why should the non-offending party
be rewarded?
Pairs. The entire field is in 4H making. Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

[Rob Morris]

Post by v***@hotmail.com
Penalize the revoke. But why should the non-offending party
be rewarded?
Pairs. The entire field is in 4H making. Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

Yeah! In fact, *every* board should be sent before a panel of judges, to
prevent people being rewarded for their opponents' mistakes.

Come on, if we try really hard we can make it happen!

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by v***@hotmail.com
Pairs. The entire field is in 4H making. Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

He has to share it with another declarer who was lucky to have a
defender sacrifice in an impossible 5D.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

   You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is reasonable
that you should be penalised.  Quoting the Scope of the 1997 Laws doe
snot change this: some penalties are given.  Have you considered the
word "primarily"?
--
David Stevenson           Bridge      RTFLB       Cats       Railways
Liverpool, England, UK    Fax: [phone]        ICQ:  20039682
                           Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

Penalize the revoke.  But why should the non-offending party
be rewarded?
Pairs.  The entire field is in 4H making.  Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

Yes, of course. And while we're at it - everyone played 6H = with the
king of hearts off side, except one lucky person whose defender
inadvertently picked the wrong card when the finesse was made.

[David Stevenson]

Post by v***@hotmail.com
Penalize the revoke. But why should the non-offending party
be rewarded?
Pairs. The entire field is in 4H making. Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

Maybe not. Bu it is such a normal thing for someone to get a good
board for an idiocy of an opponent, happening hundreds of times a night
in all clubs, and it makes life so easy for TDs as other posts have
explained, that there are no obvious better options.

[raija d]

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is reasonable
that you should be penalised. Quoting the Scope of the 1997 Laws doe
snot change this: some penalties are given. Have you considered the
word "primarily"?
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: [phone] ICQ: 20039682
Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

Penalize the revoke. But why should the non-offending party
be rewarded?
Pairs. The entire field is in 4H making. Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

++++
It is the luck factor. It will always be there, the fact that sometimes we
achieve good scores through now effort by our side, the opponents gave it to
us. Revoke is one of those cases. So is misdefense and misplay and bad
bidding.

[Adam Lea]

Post by v***@hotmail.com
Penalize the revoke. But why should the non-offending party
be rewarded?
Pairs. The entire field is in 4H making. Now because one
declarer was lucky to have his defender revoke, he 'deserves'
a top?

That 's pairs for you.

Pairs: Our opponents bid and make a cold slam against us that no-one else in
the room finds. Did we deserve our bottom?

Pairs: We play two hands against a couple of novices and they happen to
misdefend on both of them to let through an overtrick. Other pairs playing
against the same novices get two flat boards against them. Did we deserve
our tops?

This is why I prefer head to head teams.

Adam

[Kent Feiler]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:25:06 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is
reasonable that you should be penalised. Quoting the Scope of the
1997 Laws does not change this: some penalties are given. Have you
considered the word "primarily"?

It is the same as any other sport or mindsport: the way to avoid
being penalised is to follow the rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

Uh oh, are we talking about the opponents being "discomforted" again?
If we're penalizing people for "spoiling the game" for others, the law
books will soon be the size of the Chicago telephone book. Bad
haircut? Two tricks. Or is that reasonable?


Regards,


Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

[raija d]

Post by Kent Feiler
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:25:06 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is
reasonable that you should be penalised. Quoting the Scope of the
1997 Laws does not change this: some penalties are given. Have you
considered the word "primarily"?
It is the same as any other sport or mindsport: the way to avoid
being penalised is to follow the rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
Uh oh, are we talking about the opponents being "discomforted" again?
If we're penalizing people for "spoiling the game" for others, the law
books will soon be the size of the Chicago telephone book. Bad
haircut? Two tricks. Or is that reasonable?
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

Good haircut *is not* the overriding most important essence of the game
while "following suit" is. Law 44.C Therefore, bad haircut/two tricks is
not reasonable :)

I think this "discomforting opponents "aspect was brought only to illuminate
that no revoke is harmless and without any effect or consequences even if
the trick number were the same with or without the revoke. We should not be
reading something into the laws that is not there, on that I agree with
Kent.

[David Stevenson]

Post by Kent Feiler
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:25:06 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?

You spoil the game for other people by revoking, so it is
reasonable that you should be penalised. Quoting the Scope of the
1997 Laws does not change this: some penalties are given. Have you
considered the word "primarily"?
It is the same as any other sport or mindsport: the way to avoid
being penalised is to follow the rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
David,
Uh oh, are we talking about the opponents being "discomforted" again?
If we're penalizing people for "spoiling the game" for others, the law
books will soon be the size of the Chicago telephone book. Bad
haircut? Two tricks. Or is that reasonable?

Bad haircuts do not *spoil* the game: revoking does.

[raija d]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

This is a recurring subject. If we had a say in how the law should be
written, I am in favor of penalty for a player who violates a core principle
of the game = follow suit. Damage or no damage. The revoke ruling under
current laws (and all the past ones as well) is often mechanical, an easy
and easy to understand award of one or two tricks.
A law that is applied the same way to everybody, is fair.

[Stu G]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

Revoking in general ruins the game. To revoke means you are not
playing bridge, so they made following suit the primary law:

Law 44C. Requirement to Follow Suit. In playing to a trick, each
player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence
over all other requirements of these Laws.

In college we often corralled a 4th who really didn't want to play.
He got his revenge by revoking on a large number of tricks. It wasn't
really a bridge game with this guy sitting at the table.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Stig Holmquist]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:53:47 -0500, Stig Holmquist

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.

It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.

The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.

It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.

It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.

I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

Stig

Stig

[Chris]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:53:47 -0500, Stig Holmquist

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two  in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and  demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

In any game, sportsmanship is DEFINED by the rules of the game.
Sportsmanship has to be differently defined in a game where your
opponents' real competitors aren't even at the table--it is hardly
sporting to waive the penalty without consulting *them*--indeed,
waiving the penalty in a matchpoint pairs game is morally more like
insider trading than it is like good sportsmanship. If you don't like
bridge, YOU should take up canasta.

Honestly, can you imagine someone arguing that using your hands in
football (soccer, to my fellow Americans) shouldn't be so harshly
penalized because why should the hands (and arms) be treated
differently from any other part of the body and why should it be
penalized even if it was a glancing touch that had no impact on the
game? This is what you are doing.

Can you imagine a self-respecting chess player saying that touch-move
should not apply because he was being inattentive? Do you think he
would complain and whine if he was checkmated two moves after his
opponent's flag fell? Or do you think he would be embarassed that he
hadn't looked at the clock, and resolve to pay more attention next
time?

Also, perhaps you have not noticed how severe the penalties for a call
or play out of rotation are in bridge. They can easily lead to
results far worse than a one or two trick penalty.

Ah, well, I suppose when you make a bid out of turn, you will start a
thread about how the law regarding that is the most draconian law in
bridge.

If you followed suit but pulled the wrong card, you could have cost
yourself several tricks. With a revoke, the laws even give you a
chance for a "do-over" if you notice it in time, which is a chance you
do NOT get if you played the wrong card but did not revoke. It seems
to me that for thinking people, the penalty for a revoke is actually
*lighter* than the penalty for other misplays.

But in your wallowing self-pity, you haven't thought of any of this.

Christopher Monsour

[BBO expert]

Post by Chris
Honestly, can you imagine someone arguing that using your hands in
football (soccer, to my fellow Americans) shouldn't be so harshly
penalized because why should the hands (and arms) be treated
differently from any other part of the body and why should it be
penalized even if it was a glancing touch that had no impact on the
game? This is what you are doing.

Seems like an odd example, since of course the differences in the rules of
the various games named "football" centre around the use (or not) of the
hands :-)

[Bob]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:53:47 -0500, Stig Holmquist

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.
Stig

Hi Stig. I am hoping you are being somewhat sarcastic here. David
Stevenson does not speak for the people making the laws, and I believe
does not express a majority opinion. In fact, the penalties for a
revoke were softened in the 2008 laws.

As far as I know, the "Draconian" penalties for revokes are part a
leftover from the past, and mostly an attempt to provide a simple-to-
apply ruling that almost always protects the nonoffending side.

At the club level, it could get very difficult for a playing director
to determine what would have happened without the revoke. At the
tournament level, a subjective judgment by the director is likely to
be appealed.

I agree that usually the penalties are too harsh. I am not fond of
them as a director or player. But I can't think of a good solution.

This isn't just the revoke penalties; it applies to almost all of the
penalties which attempt to provide a simple solution almost always
protecting the nonoffending side.

[BBO expert]

Post by Bob
Hi Stig. I am hoping you are being somewhat sarcastic here. David
Stevenson does not speak for the people making the laws,

Not officially, but I'd guess he's as close as you're going to find here...

Post by Bob
and I believe does not express a majority opinion.

I expect he does

[Dave Flower]

Post by BBO expert

Post by Bob
Hi Stig. I am hoping you are being somewhat sarcastic here. David
Stevenson does not speak for the people making the laws,

Not officially, but I'd guess he's as close as you're going to find here...

Post by Bob
and I believe does not express a majority opinion.

I expect he does

If the revoking side wins neither the revoke trick, nor any subsequent
trick, there is no penalty.

If the Law was intended to be punative, then it would allow penalising
of a trick won before the revoke.

Personally, I see no difference between saying:

- No penalty because you have no tricks to be penalised

and

- No penalty because you did not gain by the revoke

Note that, under the current Laws, the Director has to determine,
under Law 64C, how much the revoke benefitted the offending side.

Dave Flower

[David Stevenson]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by BBO expert

Post by Bob
Hi Stig. I am hoping you are being somewhat sarcastic here. David
Stevenson does not speak for the people making the laws,

Not officially, but I'd guess he's as close as you're going to find here...

Post by Bob
and I believe does not express a majority opinion.

I expect he does

If the revoking side wins neither the revoke trick, nor any subsequent
trick, there is no penalty.
If the Law was intended to be punative, then it would allow penalising
of a trick won before the revoke.
- No penalty because you have no tricks to be penalised
and
- No penalty because you did not gain by the revoke
Note that, under the current Laws, the Director has to determine,
under Law 64C, how much the revoke benefitted the offending side.

Why is ***everything*** black and white to you, when life is not like
that?

The tricks for a revoke penalty are a mixture of equity restoring and
a penalty. Tricks before the revoke could never be equity restoring but
purely penalty. So the current Law is a very sensible method.

[Dave Flower]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by BBO expert

Post by Bob
Hi Stig. I am hoping you are being somewhat sarcastic here. David
Stevenson does not speak for the people making the laws,

Not officially, but I'd guess he's as close as you're going to find here...

Post by Bob
and I believe does not express a majority opinion.

I expect he does

If the revoking side wins neither the revoke trick, nor any subsequent
trick, there is no penalty.
If the Law was intended to be punative, then it would allow penalising
of a trick won before the revoke.
- No penalty because you have no tricks to be penalised
and
- No penalty because you did not gain by the revoke
Note that, under the current Laws, the Director has to determine,
under Law 64C, how much the revoke benefitted the offending side.

� �Why is ***everything*** �black and white to you, when life is not like
that?
� �The tricks for a revoke penalty are a mixture of equity restoring and
a penalty. �Tricks before the revoke could never be equity restoring but
purely penalty. �So the current Law is a very sensible method.
--
David Stevenson � � � � � Bridge � � �RTFLB � � � Cats � � � Railways
Liverpool, England, UK � �Fax: [phone] � � � �ICQ: �20039682
� � � � � � � � � � � � � �Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

But depriving a defender of a trick with the ace of trumps, because
it was taken after the revoke is also purely penalty, so why allow
that, but not if it were taken before the revoke ?

Dave Flower

[David Stevenson]

Post by Dave Flower

Post by Dave Flower

Post by BBO expert

Post by Bob
Hi Stig. I am hoping you are being somewhat sarcastic here. David
Stevenson does not speak for the people making the laws,

Not officially, but I'd guess he's as close as you're going to find here...

Post by Bob
and I believe does not express a majority opinion.

I expect he does

If the revoking side wins neither the revoke trick, nor any subsequent
trick, there is no penalty.
If the Law was intended to be punative, then it would allow penalising
of a trick won before the revoke.
- No penalty because you have no tricks to be penalised
and
- No penalty because you did not gain by the revoke
Note that, under the current Laws, the Director has to determine,
under Law 64C, how much the revoke benefitted the offending side.

0 >>like
that?
0 >> a penalty. 0 >> purely penalty. 0 >>
--
- Show quoted text -

But depriving a defender of a trick with the ace of trumps, because
it was taken after the revoke is also purely penalty, so why allow
that, but not if it were taken before the revoke ?

Because there is a simple, sensible and effective mix of penalty and
equity in the current rule.

[campboy]

Post by Stig Holmquist
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two  in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.

I don't think there is real disagreement here, and the Law is quite
clear. It sounds like the director who ruled against you simply got it
wrong. In the 2007 Laws the only way there can be a 2-trick transfer
is if you win a trick by ruffing a suit you are not out of.

[David Stevenson]

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it. I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.

You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

[Stig Holmquist]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it. I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?

D.Flower is clearly the only one who understands the incongruity of
part of the revoke laws, viz. no penalty if the side wins no tricks
and gains no advatage, while a two trick penalty is incurred for
another revoke that did not cause any damage or gained any advantage?

Either all or no inconsequential revoke should be penalized to restore
equity. Let's consider two trick penalty for all and see if it reduces
them. I doubt it.

The American justice system allows you to file a complaint and seek
compensation for damage or loss, but it's your responsibility to
convice the judge you have suffered a loss or damage, not just a minor
inconveniance or annoyance or irritation. If you fail to make your
case you will be denied compensation. The ACBL bridge laws should
reflect the same spirit. It you cannot show damage or loss at the
table you deserve no compensation and your complaint is frivolous.
The burden of prooof should rest on the complainer not on the
director.

You seem to be the kind of player whos motto is : winning is not the
most imprtant thing, it's the only thing that matters, and thus does
not care if you win by fair or foul means. That is the hallmark of
unsportsman like conduct. Earn your wins.

Stig

[Dave Flower]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two �in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and �demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

� I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it. �I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
� You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?
D.Flower is clearly the only one who understands the incongruity of
part of the revoke laws, viz. no penalty if the side wins no tricks
and gains no advatage, while a two trick penalty is incurred for
another revoke that did not cause any �damage or gained any advantage?
Either all or no inconsequential revoke should be penalized to restore
equity. Let's consider two trick penalty for all and see if it reduces
them. I doubt it.
The American justice system allows you to file a complaint and seek
compensation for damage or loss, but it's �your responsibility to
convice the judge you have suffered a loss or damage, not just a minor
inconveniance or annoyance or irritation. If you fail to make your
case you will be denied compensation. �The ACBL bridge laws should
reflect the same spirit. It you cannot show damage or loss at the
table you deserve no compensation and your complaint is frivolous.
The burden of prooof should rest on the complainer not on the
director.
You seem to be the kind of player whos motto is : winning is not the
most imprtant thing, it's the only thing that matters, and thus does
not care if you win by fair or foul means. That is the hallmark of
unsportsman like conduct. Earn your wins.
Stig- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I agree with most of what you say, but feel that in this case, the
burden of proof should lie with the offending side. That is that the
non-offending side should (to quote Law12Cei) receive 'the most
favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred'.

Dave Flower

[David Stevenson]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it. I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?

Of course. You spoil the game for others: you get penalised. If you
are sportsmanlike, you expect to get penalised. If you are
unsportsmanlike, you try to avoid getting penalised - and you are
pathetic if you want to avoid such a penalty.

[Chris]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two  in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and  demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

  I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it.  I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
  You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?

If you wanted a level-headed discussion of the revoke rule, or even
how to improve the laws of bridge, that would be one thing. Instead,
you start this thread by complaining about a hand where *you*
revoked. Clearly, all you are interested in is whining about how it
bit *you*. Now, if you had been barred from your livelihood
indefinitely, as at least one other poster in this forum has, for
something you claimed you didn't even do, you could expect a certain
amount of sympathy, and people wanting to understand a unique, odd,
and possibly draconian situation. No, rather you are whining about
being subject to the same revoke penalty that has been applied to
everyone else. You are not even claiming that you didn't actually do
it. And the penalty was, what, two lousy tricks? If you want to see
pathetic, look in a mirror.

If you think the revoke rule should be changed, telling people who
disagree with you that they "lack understanding of human nature" or
describing an incorrect play as "harmless" (what about "harmlessly"
blurting out that you hold the ace of spades because you forgot that
the cards in your hand are supposed to be a secret?) are not likely to
convince others. You've had about 80 clues in the form of responses
from r.g.b. posters as to what it would take to convince them.
Instead, you do nothing but repeat louder the same things that you by
now ought to know will only convince yourself.

Post by Stig Holmquist
D.Flower is clearly the only one who understands the incongruity of
part of the revoke laws, viz. no penalty if the side wins no tricks
and gains no advatage, while a two trick penalty is incurred for
another revoke that did not cause any  damage or gained any advantage?

And if your hand slipped and you played the jack instead of the king,
but you had misguessed in the first place, then your misplay actually
gains. So what?

I am starting to think that you feel it incongruous that you are
punished with the loss of a trick for misguessing a two-way finesse.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Either all or no inconsequential revoke should be penalized to restore
equity. Let's consider two trick penalty for all and see if it reduces
them. I doubt it.

How about changing the rule that you can replace the revoke card with
any legal card (when a revoke has not yet been established) with a
rule that your opponent may elect to specify that you must play
"highest" or "lowest" (or at least give them the option to allow the
revoke to stand...let's say you discarded, and this way you won't be
able to ruff next round either)? After all, why treat some misplays
more *leniently* than others?

Post by Stig Holmquist
The American justice system allows you to file a complaint and seek
compensation for damage or loss, but it's  your responsibility to
convice the judge you have suffered a loss or damage, not just a minor
inconveniance or annoyance or irritation. If you fail to make your
case you will be denied compensation.  

The American justice system (and the English one) also routinely
punish people for disorderly conduct without proof of damage, when
irritation is the only issue. If you doubt this, try walking down
your local street naked...

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL bridge laws should
reflect the same spirit. It you cannot show damage or loss at the
table you deserve no compensation and your complaint is frivolous.
The burden of prooof should rest on the complainer not on the
director.

You aren't a very good lawyer, either. The opponents NOT
complainants; they are *fact witnesses*. They are obligated to notify
the director that an irregularity has occurred. The director then
rules accordingly.

Post by Stig Holmquist
You seem to be the kind of player whos motto is : winning is not the
most imprtant thing, it's the only thing that matters, and thus does
not care if you win by fair or foul means. That is the hallmark of
unsportsman like conduct. Earn your wins.

Of course, unsportsmanlike conduct cannot be identified outside of the
RULES and CUSTOMS of the GAME. Take American football, for example.
Engage in a little celebration after your team scores, and that is
likely to be considered OK. Do it after some other play that went
very well for your side (but did not result in a score), and you may
well be penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct (or, in some
leagues, 5 yards for delay of game). If you aren't interested in
understanding the game as it is customarily played, then you aren't
qualified to discuss what is sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike.

Christopher Monsour

[ted]

Post by Chris

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two  in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and  demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

  I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it.  I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
  You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?

If you wanted a level-headed discussion of the revoke rule, or even
how to improve the laws of bridge, that would be one thing.  Instead,
you start this thread by complaining about a hand where *you*
revoked.  Clearly, all you are interested in is whining about how it
bit *you*.  Now, if you had been barred from your livelihood
indefinitely, as at least one other poster in this forum has, for
something you claimed you didn't even do, you could expect a certain
amount of sympathy, and people wanting to understand a unique, odd,
and possibly draconian situation.  No, rather you are whining about
being subject to the same revoke penalty that has been applied to
everyone else.  You are not even claiming that you didn't actually do
it.  And the penalty was, what, two lousy tricks?  If you want to see
pathetic, look in a mirror.
If you think the revoke rule should be changed, telling people who
disagree with you that they "lack understanding of human nature" or
describing an incorrect play as "harmless" (what about "harmlessly"
blurting out that you hold the ace of spades because you forgot that
the cards in your hand are supposed to be a secret?) are not likely to
convince others.  You've had about 80 clues in the form of responses
from r.g.b. posters as to what it would take to convince them.
Instead, you do nothing but repeat louder the same things that you by
now ought to know will only convince yourself.

Post by Stig Holmquist
D.Flower is clearly the only one who understands the incongruity of
part of the revoke laws, viz. no penalty if the side wins no tricks
and gains no advatage, while a two trick penalty is incurred for
another revoke that did not cause any  damage or gained any advantage?

And if your hand slipped and you played the jack instead of the king,
but you had misguessed in the first place, then your misplay actually
gains.  So what?
I am starting to think that you feel it incongruous that you are
punished with the loss of a trick for misguessing a two-way finesse.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Either all or no inconsequential revoke should be penalized to restore
equity. Let's consider two trick penalty for all and see if it reduces
them. I doubt it.

How about changing the rule that you can replace the revoke card with
any legal card (when a revoke has not yet been established) with a
rule that your opponent may elect to specify that you must play
"highest" or "lowest" (or at least give them the option to allow the
revoke to stand...let's say you discarded, and this way you won't be
able to ruff next round either)?  After all, why treat some misplays
more *leniently* than others?

Post by Stig Holmquist
The American justice system allows you to file a complaint and seek
compensation for damage or loss, but it's  your responsibility to
convice the judge you have suffered a loss or damage, not just a minor
inconveniance or annoyance or irritation. If you fail to make your
case you will be denied compensation.  

The American justice system (and the English one) also routinely
punish people for disorderly conduct without proof of damage, when
irritation is the only issue.  If you doubt this, try walking down
your local street naked...

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL bridge laws should
reflect the same spirit. It you cannot show damage or loss at the
table you deserve no compensation and your complaint is frivolous.
The burden of prooof should rest on the complainer not on the
director.

You aren't a very good lawyer, either.  The opponents NOT
complainants; they are *fact witnesses*.  They are obligated to notify
the director that an irregularity has occurred.  The director then
rules accordingly.

Post by Stig Holmquist
You seem to be the kind of player whos motto is : winning is not the
most imprtant thing, it's the only thing that matters, and thus does
not care if you win by fair or foul means. That is the hallmark of
unsportsman like conduct. Earn your wins.

Of course, unsportsmanlike conduct cannot be identified outside of the
RULES and CUSTOMS of the GAME.  Take American football, for example.
Engage in a little celebration after your team scores, and that is
likely to be considered OK.  Do it after some other play that went
very well for your side (but did not result in a score), and you may
well be penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct (or, in some
leagues, 5 yards for delay of game).  If you aren't interested in
understanding the game as it is customarily played, then you aren't
qualified to discuss what is sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike.
Christopher Monsour

Well said and I am in full agreement. Nevertheless I hope you
remembered to put on your longest raincoat and waders while you were
facing the wind that makes cleanup with a hose much easier and
faster. ;-)

[Stig Holmquist]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:20:01 -0500, Stig Holmquist

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it. I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?
D.Flower is clearly the only one who understands the incongruity of
part of the revoke laws, viz. no penalty if the side wins no tricks
and gains no advatage, while a two trick penalty is incurred for
another revoke that did not cause any damage or gained any advantage?
Either all or no inconsequential revoke should be penalized to restore
equity. Let's consider two trick penalty for all and see if it reduces
them. I doubt it.
The American justice system allows you to file a complaint and seek
compensation for damage or loss, but it's your responsibility to
convice the judge you have suffered a loss or damage, not just a minor
inconveniance or annoyance or irritation. If you fail to make your
case you will be denied compensation. The ACBL bridge laws should
reflect the same spirit. It you cannot show damage or loss at the
table you deserve no compensation and your complaint is frivolous.
The burden of prooof should rest on the complainer not on the
director.
You seem to be the kind of player whos motto is : winning is not the
most imprtant thing, it's the only thing that matters, and thus does
not care if you win by fair or foul means. That is the hallmark of
unsportsman like conduct. Earn your wins.
Stig

Some of the narrowminded dimwits at RGB would like to deny a player
the right to protest incorrect and unfair rulings by a TD. And yet,
this right to appeal is recognized in the Laws. Every month there is a
column about Ruling the Game in the ABCL Bulletin. It none of this
were not allowed there would never be any improvements in the Laws. If
this is unsportsmanlike, so be it.

I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.
None of my comments about an unfair revoke penalty were made at the
table. I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.

Some posters here seem to disagree and would like to suppress it in
true reactionary custom afraid that any change might deprive them of
some petty unearned gains. Let the Obama spirit of change also prevail
in the bridge world.

Stig

[David Babcock]

Post by Stig Holmquist
I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.

Someone with a genuine interest in the Laws would not have cited the
1997 Laws in the belief that they were current.

David

[Ron Johnson]

Post by David Babcock

Post by Stig Holmquist
I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.

Someone with a genuine interest in the Laws would not have cited the
1997 Laws in the belief that they were current.

Maybe he has a working time machine.

[blackshoe]

If a player thinks there may have been an infraction of law, he or she
should call the director. If the player thinks the director's ruling
is incorrect as a matter of law or regulation, he or she should ask
the director for a reading "from the book". Any director worth his
salt should be willing to do this. Once the reading from the book is
given, though, that's an end to it (but see below, second paragraph
following).

If it's a judgement matter, the TD's judgement is subject to review -
but not by the player at the table. The right thing to do is state
that you wish to appeal the ruling, then shut up and get on with the
game.

One can appeal a "matter of interpretation of law" ruling too, but be
aware that the AC *cannot* override the TD in such a case. At most,
they can suggest he review his ruling.

Arguing with the TD at the table is subject to penalty - and rightly
so, IMO.

If you think a director is "out to get you" or incompetent, don't play
in his games. If you choose to play in his games anyway, don't whine
about his rulings. That's just stupid.

[Stig Holmquist]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:18:52 -0800 (PST), David Babcock

Post by David Babcock

Post by Stig Holmquist
I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.

Someone with a genuine interest in the Laws would not have cited the
1997 Laws in the belief that they were current.
David

Thank you for inadvertently solving my controversy. Today I asked the
Dir., who penalized me two tricks, to let me read the 2008 ACBL Law
Book . In it I find this expression under Law 64A2:" When a revoke is
established and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by
the offending player then, if the offending side won that or any
subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transfered to the
non-offending side." This is exactly what Sven Pran wrote and David
Flower confirmed. Let's hear from the contortionists.

Ergo, I've documented Stevenson as utterly ignorant or unable to read
plain English. Also, The illwilled neofascist BBO is again exposed.

When I called attention to this law the Dir. freely admitted he had
made a mistake. I wish I had better grasp of the revoke laws so I
could have protested at the table to get it corrected.

Note that the new LAws do not refer to penalties for a revoke but
calls them rectifications. Thus the spirit has changed a bit.

Stig

[David Babcock]

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've documented Stevenson as utterly ignorant or unable to read
plain English

David Stevenson is Senior Consultant Tournament Director of the
English Bridge Union and a member of that organization's Laws and
Ethics Committee.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Note that the new Laws do not refer to penalties for a revoke but
calls them rectifications.

Yes, we know. We discussed the new Laws here extensively after their
approval in Shanghai in 2007 though their adoption and implementation
by the various member organizations of the WBF last year. Too bad you
chose not to be educated by any of that work during your many visits
to this newsgroup throughout that time period.

David

[David Stevenson]

Post by David Babcock

Post by Stig Holmquist
Note that the new Laws do not refer to penalties for a revoke but
calls them rectifications.

Yes, we know. We discussed the new Laws here extensively after their
approval in Shanghai in 2007 though their adoption and implementation
by the various member organizations of the WBF last year. Too bad you
chose not to be educated by any of that work during your many visits
to this newsgroup throughout that time period.

As has been mentioned many times in this thread, one of the advantage
of the current revoke penalty approach is that it is both a simple means
of restoring equity, often effective, and a random revoke penalty.

The idea of rectifications as against penalties is that it is a mixed
term, designed to mean either a penalty or restoring equity. As such,
it is an unhelpful term in many situations. But it is perfect for
revokes, and is an improvement over the previous name revoke penalties,
because they were not purely penalty.

However, it is not a change in approach, merely a change in name.

[David Babcock]

   However, it is not a change in approach, merely a change in name.

Indeed. The introductions to both the 1987 and the 1997 Laws said,
"The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities,
but rather as redress for damages."

David

[Stig Holmquist]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:16:19 -0800 (PST), David Babcock

Post by David Babcock

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've documented Stevenson as utterly ignorant or unable to read
plain English

David Stevenson is Senior Consultant Tournament Director of the
English Bridge Union and a member of that organization's Laws and
Ethics Committee.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Note that the new Laws do not refer to penalties for a revoke but
calls them rectifications.

Yes, we know. We discussed the new Laws here extensively after their
approval in Shanghai in 2007 though their adoption and implementation
by the various member organizations of the WBF last year. Too bad you
chose not to be educated by any of that work during your many visits
to this newsgroup throughout that time period.
David

I do not concern myself with laws in general since I'm not a director
of any kind. I've better use for my time. But when a law affects me
directly I try to understan what it says, since my experience has been
that some directors do no fully understand the specific law in point.

Stig

[Stig Holmquist]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:18:52 -0800 (PST), David Babcock

Post by David Babcock

Post by Stig Holmquist
I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.

Someone with a genuine interest in the Laws would not have cited the
1997 Laws in the belief that they were current.
David

Thank you for inadvertently solving my controversy. I got hold of the
2008 ACBL Law Book and Law 64A2 confirms what Sven Pran stated.
When I shoed it to the director ,who took away two tricks, he admitted
having made an error and that he should have taken away only one
trick. Only Pran and Flowr seem to understand the Law.

Stig

[blackshoe]

Mr. Holmquist:

It seems to me there is only one reasonable reply to your last few
messages in this thread.

PLONK!

[richlp]

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:20:01 -0500, Stig Holmquist

Post by Stig Holmquist
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:21:22 +0000, David Stevenson

Post by Stig Holmquist
After reading all responses and comments it's time for me to summarize
what I've learnt and make some final observatiions. This might be a
bit longer than my usual posts, because there is no other forum
available to say what I think.
It seem that an inadvertent, inconsequential and harmless revoke is
regarded as the most cardinal sin in bridge deserving of an
unconditional loss of at least one trick. There seem to be
disagreement wheather it should be two  in my specific case.
That suggests the Law writers have failed to be clear and unambigous
and thus confirms the well known saying :The law is an ass , an idiot.
I think there are far worse offenses and distractions than a harmless
revoke at the local club level game, mostly attended by seniors, and
for which there are no penalties.
The Laws are designed to deter cheating at the top level, where it's
realistic to expect and  demand near perfection with regard to laws.
The greater the reward for winning, the greater the temptation to
cheat. There is no need to apply the same laws at the lowest level of
the game. Different convention cards are used at various levels.
It's foolish if not outright absurd to design laws to cure old age
frailties like inattention and absentmindedness with penalties.
It's hypocritical of the Laws to say they are not designed to punish
irregularities and then meet out unconditional penalties for harmless
actions. A director who is unable to tell an inocent mistake from a
damaging one should take up canasta instead.
I can well understand if D.Stevenson is still smarting from the
Shapiro case and wishes to make sure nothing remotedly like it ever
happens again. But that is a concern at the top of the game and should
not govern how to rule at the local level, where cheating is rare.
Old age frailties have nothing to do with sportsmanship. The Laws
specificall prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

  I don't give a damn about some old case which has nothing to do with
it.  I play a lot of club bridge and dislike people who wish to spoil
the game for other people and not get punished for it.
  You desire to encourage unsportsmanlike behaviour does bridge no
favours.

You evidently lack understanding of human nature. How one can
interpret an inadvertent and harmless revoke as a desire to spoil the
game is beyond my comprehension and respect. So you think D.Flower
revoked with a desire to spoil a game. You are pathetic. The rest of
your arguments on this subject are equally flawed. Do yyou think a two
trick penalty for a revoke that gained nothing was fair?
D.Flower is clearly the only one who understands the incongruity of
part of the revoke laws, viz. no penalty if the side wins no tricks
and gains no advatage, while a two trick penalty is incurred for
another revoke that did not cause any  damage or gained any advantage?
Either all or no inconsequential revoke should be penalized to restore
equity. Let's consider two trick penalty for all and see if it reduces
them. I doubt it.
The American justice system allows you to file a complaint and seek
compensation for damage or loss, but it's  your responsibility to
convice the judge you have suffered a loss or damage, not just a minor
inconveniance or annoyance or irritation. If you fail to make your
case you will be denied compensation.  The ACBL bridge laws should
reflect the same spirit. It you cannot show damage or loss at the
table you deserve no compensation and your complaint is frivolous.
The burden of prooof should rest on the complainer not on the
director.
You seem to be the kind of player whos motto is : winning is not the
most imprtant thing, it's the only thing that matters, and thus does
not care if you win by fair or foul means. That is the hallmark of
unsportsman like conduct. Earn your wins.
Stig

Some of the narrowminded dimwits at RGB would like to deny a player
the right to protest incorrect and unfair rulings by a TD. And yet,
this right to appeal is recognized in the Laws. Every month there is a
column about Ruling the Game in the ABCL Bulletin. It none of this
were not allowed there would never be any improvements in the Laws. If
this is unsportsmanlike, so be it.
I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.
None of my comments about an unfair revoke penalty were made at the
table. I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.
Some posters here seem to disagree and would like to suppress it in
true reactionary custom afraid that any change might deprive them of
some petty unearned gains. Let the Obama spirit of change also prevail
in the bridge world.
Stig- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Some of the narrowminded dimwits at RGB would like to deny a player
the right to protest incorrect and unfair rulings by a TD.

As a narrowminded dimwith, I wouldn't dream of denying you the right
to protest. Unfortunately for your position, the ruling you received
was almost certainly correct as a matter of law. The director, as a
matter of law, is not allowed to waive the penalties because they are
unfair to the "guilty" party.


And yet, this right to appeal is recognized in the Laws. Every month
there is a

Post by Stig Holmquist
column about Ruling the Game in the ABCL Bulletin. It none of this
were not allowed there would never be any improvements in the Laws. If
this is unsportsmanlike, so be it.

You also have an absolute right under the laws to appeal the
director's decision. Just as with many court systems, there are
penalties for making frivilous appeals that waste the court's (AC)
time. Since the Laws are quite clear on the penalty for a revoke, and
since the AC cannot rewrite the Law, were I on the committee hearing
your appeal I would support disciplinary action against use for abuse
of process.

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.

That may be so, and good for you for being so well versed in the Law
that you were able to correct the ruling.

Post by Stig Holmquist
None of my comments about an unfair revoke penalty were made at the
table. I believe an open debate about any aspect of the Laws and the
game is needed and healthy.

You are having your debate. You seem unwilling to accept that the
vast majority of posters accept strong penalties for violations of
procedure such as leads out-of-turn, insufficient bids, penalty cards,
etc. even though the offense would have had little, if any, impact on
the result of the hand. Revokes fall into the same general catagory.
In forty years of duplicate play I have revoked my fair share of the
time. So have my opponents. I don't try to weasel out of my penalty,
and have never had an opponent do so. I have never had anybody call
me a heartless SOB trying to win at any cost and I have never heard
that said about anybody else who simply accepted the Director's ruling
that this is what the law requires.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Some posters here seem to disagree and would like to suppress it in
true reactionary custom afraid that any change might deprive them of
some petty unearned gains.

Nobody has suppressed your right to bring this issue to the forum.
There has been vigorous refutation of your points and expressions of
opinion about your refusal to accept the ruling as correct. I feel
confident in saying that NOBODY here is in favor of the current revoke
penalty because it gets them some "petty gains." I feel confident in
saying that the vast majority here have, at some point in time, made
an inconsequential revoke and paid the penalty without a murmur or
feeling that the opponent was a win-at-all-cost ogre. The last time
it happened to me it cost my team 11 IMPS and 5 VPs - the team was not
happy with me but NOBODY blamed the laws, director, or opponents.

[BBO expert]

Post by richlp

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.

That may be so, and good for you for being so well versed in the Law
that you were able to correct the ruling.

As a narrowminded dimwit, I'd suggest that rather than being "adjusted when
[he] objected at the table" he should have been further penalized.
Everybody is entitled to an appeal, but you can't be arguing with the
director _at the table_.

[Bob]

Post by BBO expert

Post by richlp

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.

That may be so, and good for you for being so well versed in the Law
that you were able to correct the ruling.

As a narrowminded dimwit, I'd suggest that rather than being "adjusted when
[he] objected at the table" he should have been further penalized.
Everybody is entitled to an appeal, but you can't be arguing with the
director _at the table_.

If someone thinks I am making a wrong ruling, I would like to hear
about it at the table. The goal in directing is not just to get it
right, but to leave the table with everyone thinking the ruling was
right. Example: Last Saturday a director at the table thought my
ruling was wrong, so I let her read it from the laws and then she was
content.

And if I happened to get a ruling wrong, I would rather be corrected
at the table, than in an appeals or not at all. (Usually, this is just
me not understanding the situation, but whatever.)

Right, past a point I ask them to discuss it with me later and I can
change the ruling if they are right.

Bob

[Ron Johnson]

Post by BBO expert

Post by richlp

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.

That may be so, and good for you for being so well versed in the Law
that you were able to correct the ruling.

As a narrowminded dimwit, I'd suggest that rather than being "adjusted when
[he] objected at the table" he should have been further penalized.  
Everybody is entitled to an appeal, but you can't be arguing with the
director _at the table_.

Not sure I agree here. I see nothing wrong with a polite objection
when you feel the director is wrong as a matter of law.

Continuing any discussion/argument after that is potentially
disruptive and should be pointless.

I've only objected to the ruling at the table once. Worked out
well in that the director in question got help from a much
more senior director and came back with the correct ruling.

No disruption to the game -- particularly as it turned out to
be moot (team game, not scored on VPs)

[BBO expert]

Post by Ron Johnson

Post by BBO expert

Post by richlp

Post by Stig Holmquist
I've been the victim of half a dozen unfair or incorrect rulings by a
TD over the years, which were adjusted when I objected at the table.

That may be so, and good for you for being so well versed in the Law
that you were able to correct the ruling.

As a narrowminded dimwit, I'd suggest that rather than being "adjusted when
[he] objected at the table" he should have been further penalized.
Everybody is entitled to an appeal, but you can't be arguing with the
director _at the table_.

Not sure I agree here. I see nothing wrong with a polite objection
when you feel the director is wrong as a matter of law.

Hey, I'm being a narrowminded dimwit. I'm sure there's _nothing_ wrong with
a polite objection - after all you have to make it clear you object just to
ask for an appeal. But that's not the same as "arguing with the director"
and after this entire thread, can you really imagine Stig being polite about
it?

[Ron Johnson]

On Jan 20, 9:21 pm, richlp <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

(Sorry -- oversnipped. Rich is responding to Stig)

You are having your debate.  You seem unwilling to accept that the
vast majority of posters accept strong penalties for violations of
procedure such as leads out-of-turn, insufficient bids, penalty cards,
etc. even though the offense would have had little, if any, impact on
the result of the hand.  Revokes fall into the same general catagory.

Right. These are all relatively frequent and the laws to my
mind have a pretty pragmatic blend of ease of comprehension,
simplicity of application and a penalty that's generally of
the correct magnitude.

In forty years of duplicate play I have revoked my fair share of the
time.  So have my opponents.  I don't try to weasel out of my penalty,
and have never had an opponent do so.  I have never had anybody call
me a heartless SOB trying to win at any cost and I have never heard
that said about anybody else who simply accepted the Director's ruling
that this is what the law requires.

There's an another way to look at this.

Think the principle of restricted talent (thanks Nick S.)

If Stig is willing to say, "I'm an idiot and I'm prepared
to submit evidence", then maybe we could look into allowing
him to play by his own rules in this area.

After all, I know there's a healthy minority of players who
favor not attempting to enforce these penalties (by simply
not drawing attention to them) against players who in their
judgment are either too inexperienced or just too bad (the
eternal novice)

For myself I'd rather pay the penalty than make the
admission.

Post by Stig Holmquist
Some posters here seem to disagree and would like to suppress it in
true reactionary custom afraid that any change might deprive them of
some petty unearned gains.

Nobody has suppressed your right to bring this issue to the forum.
There has been vigorous refutation of your points and expressions of
opinion about your refusal to accept the ruling as correct.  I feel
confident in saying that NOBODY here is in favor of the current revoke
penalty because it gets them some "petty gains."  I feel confident in
saying that the vast majority here have, at some point in time, made
an inconsequential revoke and paid the penalty without a murmur or
feeling that the opponent was a win-at-all-cost ogre.  

Oh I paid with a murmur or two. But it was directed at myself
for being such a moron. Didn't even occur to me that my opponent
was doing anything wrong.

The last time
it happened to me it cost my team 11 IMPS and 5 VPs - the team was not
happy with me but NOBODY blamed the laws, director, or opponents.

[David Babcock]

there is no other forum available to say what I think.

If you mean you would be called out even faster on BLML than here, I
have no reason to disagree.

The Laws
specifically prohibit good sportsmanship by forbidding waiver.

The Laws continually provide players with the opportunity to show good
sportsmanship by accepting the prescribed consequences for their
infractions gracefully.

David

[Dave Flower]

Post by Stig Holmquist
The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

As it happened, I revoked yesterday afternoon, on the following hand:

K Q 10 8 3
3
9 5 3
K Q 10 9
A 2 9 7 5 4
Q J 9 8 K 10 6 4
8 7 6 2 J 4
J 7 5 A 6 3
J 6
A 7 5 2
A K Q 10
8 4 2

I led HQ against 3NT, and followed with H10, H9. Declarer won the
third round, and played SJ, which I ducked, declarer continued with a
small club, and I 'won' with the SA. The revoke was spotted before it
was established, and there was no way that declarer could benefit from
the penalty card (CK was ducked, and declarer ran the diamonds but I
was able to folloall the way.

Would I have been any less likely to revoke had the penalty been more
severe ?

Dave Flower

[David Stevenson]

On Jan 15, 1:530 >> The ACBL Encylopedia says on p.240 about THE SCOPE OF THE LAWS: "The

Post by Stig Holmquist
Laws are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities,
but as redress for damage".
So why is there a penalty for an inconsequential revoke, when it
causes no damage?
At a club game I inadverently revoked on the sevenths trick in a NT
contract, when playing the fifth diamond from dummy's long suit but
followed suit on the sixths diamond from dummy. I then took all
remaining tricks.
One opponent noticed my revoke and called the director, who awarded
the opponents two tricks. Was this reasonable or fair, when my revoke
caused no damage nor any advantage?
Stig Holmquist

K Q 10 8 3
3
9 5 3
K Q 10 9
A 2 9 7 5 4
Q J 9 8 K 10 6 4
8 7 6 2 J 4
J 7 5 A 6 3
J 6
A 7 5 2
A K Q 10
8 4 2
I led HQ against 3NT, and followed with H10, H9. Declarer won the
third round, and played SJ, which I ducked, declarer continued with a
small club, and I 'won' with the SA. The revoke was spotted before it
was established, and there was no way that declarer could benefit from
the penalty card (CK was ducked, and declarer ran the diamonds but I
was able to folloall the way.
Would I have been any less likely to revoke had the penalty been more
severe ?

No, but no-one has suggested that you would, have they?

What I and others have suggested is that some people are more likely
to revoke if there is *no* penalty.

Also it is what economists call a question of the margin: there are
always some people who are not in the margin and unaffected. But so
long as it has a noticeable beneficial effect it does not matter if it
is not *always* effective to be correct.

If there is no penalty for a revoke:

1 There will be more revokes
2 More people will be unhappy because their opponents revoke
3 People will be unhappy because they do not get a trick for their
opponents revoking
4 There will be considerably more work for club TDs who are not
experienced in judgement rulings

and

5 People who do not believe they should suffer when they do something
wrong will feel they have gained something