[mycroft]

I get a lot of "well, of course I..." and then they clue in that I'm talking about the second trick. Maybe my explanation isn't as clear as it should be.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-October-22, 02:24, said:

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that you actually prefer a punishment whose consequences vary randomly to a punishment whose consequences are consistent. Do you really mean that?

Yes, because I don't think that "punishment" is the correct approach. I initially thought that it might be, but unless you don't believe that the infraction is genuinely a mistake, there is no justification to punish. Mechanical adjustments are not designed to penalise the OS; their purpose is to protect the NOS.

I believe that looking at it from that perspective leads to the correct conclusions about the matter.

[bluejak]

I believe that punishment is an issue, and of course it has nothing to do with revoking deliberately. It is trying to keep the quality of care up. Nearly all penalties in bridge are nothing to do with deliberate infractions: they are trying to keep the number of infractions down for the sake of the non-offenders.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-22, 15:09, said:

Yes, because I don't think that "punishment" is the correct approach. I initially thought that it might be, but unless you don't believe that the infraction is genuinely a mistake, there is no justification to punish.

I agree that punishment is not the right objective, but the justification for a penalty is that it deters people from repeating the offence.

Anyway, I don't much care whether the offenders are penalised or not, or to what extent (provided it's not unreasonable or arbitrary) - I only suggested procedural penalties because you and Bluejak seemed to think it important to penalise (or deter) this offence.

Quote

Mechanical adjustments are not designed to penalise the OS; their purpose is to protect the NOS.

I have no idea what they are designed to do, but their effect is sometimes to reward the NOS and penalise the offenders. Do you regard that as a good thing, an irrelevance, or a necessary evil?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-October-22, 15:58, said:

I have no idea what they are designed to do, but their effect is sometimes to reward the NOS and penalise the offenders. Do you regard that as a good thing, an irrelevance, or a necessary evil?

I would prefer that the laws for established revokes and insufficient bids be significantly tightened up, but since the last law revision made one more lenient and the other absurd, there is no point in hoping that the next revision will go the other way. Still I think that there is a reasonable amount of deterrent effect in the current laws; I would not like less, but I would not like PPs either, and don't think the average player would like them. Sometimes you play the wrong card, find you have a legal card and there is no harm done. Receiving an automatic PP would drive a lot of people away from bridge, I believe.

As for the NOS being rewarded, this I think is an irrelevance. I would feel this way even if I was not certain that a very small quantity of MPs or IMPs change hands as a result of these irregularities.

[gnasher]

I'm told that at an event in Roehampton yesterday somebody withdrew from the event because they were unhappy about a ruling under the existing revoke rules. One swallow does not make a summer, of course.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-October-29, 02:37, said:

I'm told that at an event in Roehampton yesterday somebody withdrew from the event because they were unhappy about a ruling under the existing revoke rules. One swallow does not make a summer, of course.

From reading this, and knowing how people react when making rulings, I have no idea whether this would be a member of the NOS who didn't gain an advantage they expected to, or a member of the OS for whom the rectification was greater than restoring equity.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2012-October-29, 02:56, said:

From reading this, and knowing how people react when making rulings, I have no idea whether this would be a member of the NOS who didn't gain an advantage they expected to, or a member of the OS for whom the rectification was greater than restoring equity.

Perhaps it was the TD who walked out after yet another NOS wanted equity and then a trick transfered!

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2012-October-29, 04:34, said:

Perhaps it was the TD who walked out after yet another NOS wanted equity and then a trick transfered!

Although the post was designed for a chuckle, isn't that quite commonly the situation when one trick is transferred? The revoke did not affect the number of tricks won, so equity already existed; yet a 1-trick penalty is prescribed because the OS subsequently took a trick and the revoke card never was used to advantage.

[mycroft]

Absolutely. Which is why many people feel aggrieved when "we" get a 1-trick penalty, "losing a trick that could never be lost", and "they" don't get penalized, because the revoke gained them a trick and all the penalty did is swap it back.

And I don't, really, disagree with them. But "that's the way the Laws read, so that's how I rule. Plus, they changed it to lessen the chance of penalty in 2008, so the Lawmakers think this is better."