UI from another table again

[barmar]

I suppose it depends what you mean by "caught". Fifty people blow by a speed trap. I have never seen a cop ticket all fifty of them. But I know that he knew they were speeding.

Yes, caught means that he's actually able to stop you, not that he knows you did it. One cop can only catch one speeder at a time.

 

Analogously, if the players at the table don't call the TD when an infraction occurs, it may go unpunished (or punished incorrectly if they try to make their own ruling) even if it's a MUST. In general, laws have to give way to practicality: you can't deploy enough cops to catch every speeder out there.

[blackshoe]

Sven, speaking of "required" says "a normal understanding of 'required' would be that a violation of this is usually penalized". In the ACBL at least, almost all violations are never penalized. So I guess nothing is "required".

 

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to join the "screw the rules, I'm gonna do what I want" crowd.

[barmar]

Sven, speaking of "required" says "a normal understanding of 'required' would be that a violation of this is usually penalized". In the ACBL at least, almost all violations are never penalized. So I guess nothing is "required".

 

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to join the "screw the rules, I'm gonna do what I want" crowd.

This is a bit of an overstatement. It generally depends on the type of "required" procedure.

 

Most revokes get penalized, for instance. BOOT, LOOT and IB are usually rectified.

[blackshoe]

Most revokes get penalized only in the sense that the rectification uses the word "penalty".

[pran]

Most revokes get penalized only in the sense that the rectification uses the word "penalty".

Where do you find the term "penalize(d)" in connection with revokes?

 

(And "penalty" seems to occur only in the definition and about handling of penalty cards where the word "penalty" is an adjective, not a noun.)

 

Are you using an obsolete law book?

[barmar]

Whether or not the law book uses the word, the extra trick that's tranferred is essentially a penalty.

 

I was actually lumping all types of rectifications in with penalties. But in retrospect, I guess that was wrong. What we're basically talking about are procedural penalties, which are artificial score adjustments distinct from rectifying actions in the bidding or play. And in that case, I think it's true that TDs probably don't assess penalties nearly as much as the Laws suggest they should.

[pran]

Whether or not the law book uses the word, the extra trick that's tranferred is essentially a penalty.

No - it is essentially a rectification, and experience has shown that the standard rectification for a revoke now in most cases restores the table result to what it would have been had there been no revoke.

 

Players not that familiar with the laws of bridge frequently ask when this happens: Shall we not have anything for the revoke?

 

[...]

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling.

[...]

[blackshoe]

Are you using an obsolete law book?

I would have thought you knew me better than that.

 

No, I was working from memory. Common usage speaks of "revoke penalty" when referring to the rectification for established revokes, but the current law uses the phrase "automatic trick adjustment". The common usage may be based on language in previous versions of the law.

 

As you say, "penalty" refers to disciplinary and procedural penalties and is used in the phrase "penalty card".

[barmar]

No - it is essentially a rectification, and experience has shown that the standard rectification for a revoke now in most cases restores the table result to what it would have been had there been no revoke.

I don't have any statistics, but this doesn't sound right to me. I suspect that most revokes don't actually affect the result, but there's still a trick transferred (unless the OS doesn't take any more tricks), and occasionally two, if it's established. Unestablished revokes result in a penalty card, and this either makes no difference or is an advantage to declarer.

 

OTOH, I doubt there's ever much of a penalty associated with a minor penalty card.

[pran]

I don't have any statistics, but this doesn't sound right to me. I suspect that most revokes don't actually affect the result, but there's still a trick transferred (unless the OS doesn't take any more tricks), and occasionally two, if it's established. Unestablished revokes result in a penalty card, and this either makes no difference or is an advantage to declarer.

 

OTOH, I doubt there's ever much of a penalty associated with a minor penalty card.

You are quite correct in your assumption on how little a revoke often affects the table result, but not in your understanding of the reasons for the current law 64.

 

The main purpose of Law 64 is to simplify the process of rectification after an established revoke reasonably to both sides without the need for lengthy postmortem investigations.

 

The main alternatives for a law 64 could be:

1: The Director must examine each and every board where a revoke has been established and decide the number of tricks that shall be transferred.

2: The present rules

3: Older rules where the penalty for a revoke was the transfer of two or even three tricks.

[barmar]

You are quite correct in your assumption on how little a revoke often affects the table result, but not in your understanding of the reasons for the current law 64.

Where did I say anything about the reason for the current law 64? Did you interpret my use of the word "penalty" to mean that the reason for the current rectification is to punish revokers?

 

That's not what I intended. Even though it's not the reason, it's still the effect: the rectification for a revoke often results in the revoking side getting a worse result than they would have otherwise. So you're effectively penalized, even if that's not the intent (like saying that the penalty for having children is losing sleep).

[pran]

Where did I say anything about the reason for the current law 64? Did you interpret my use of the word "penalty" to mean that the reason for the current rectification is to punish revokers?

 

That's not what I intended.

Glad to hear that.

Even though it's not the reason, it's still the effect: the rectification for a revoke often results in the revoking side getting a worse result than they would have otherwise. So you're effectively penalized, even if that's not the intent (like saying that the penalty for having children is losing sleep).

They might feel penalized, but why not instead accept as a fact that absolute justice is a myth and that we live in a simple world where the effects of irregularities are accepted as fair more often than not.

[pescetom]

The main purpose of Law 64 is to simplify the process of rectification after an established revoke reasonably to both sides without the need for lengthy postmortem investigations.

 

The main alternatives for a law 64 could be:

1: The Director must examine each and every board where a revoke has been established and decide the number of tricks that shall be transferred.

2: The present rules

3: Older rules where the penalty for a revoke was the transfer of two or even three tricks.

 

Hey guys, don't screw with this - it's one of the few rules that can be easily understood and applied B-)

[barmar]

They might feel penalized, but why not instead accept as a fact that absolute justice is a myth and that we live in a simple world where the effects of irregularities are accepted as fair more often than not.

How they feel is not really relevant, the simple fact is that the rectification frequently causes them damage. While the reason for this may be primarily to simplify the TD's job, it still happens.

 

We're debating the word we choose to call it: adjustment vs. penalty. While sometimes words matter (by calling the Obamacare fine for not getting health insurance a "tax", SCOTUS was able to declare it constitutional), in most cases it's the effect that's most important.

[pran]

How they feel is not really relevant, the simple fact is that the rectification frequently causes them damage. While the reason for this may be primarily to simplify the TD's job, it still happens.

 

We're debating the word we choose to call it: adjustment vs. penalty. While sometimes words matter (by calling the Obamacare fine for not getting health insurance a "tax", SCOTUS was able to declare it constitutional), in most cases it's the effect that's most important.

Well,

my experience is that more often than causing "damage" to the offending side the revoke laws just restore equity on the board.

And a common question from the non-offending side is then: "Do we not get anything extra for the revoke?"

[barmar]

Well,

my experience is that more often than causing "damage" to the offending side the revoke laws just restore equity on the board.

And a common question from the non-offending side is then: "Do we not get anything extra for the revoke?"

Possibly because many of them remember the old laws, which transferred a second trick in more cases. So the current revoke law is less penalty-like than it used to be.

[pran]

Possibly because many of them remember the old laws, which transferred a second trick in more cases. So the current revoke law is less penalty-like than it used to be.

No, they simply ask if the offender really can get away with no consequence.

And this is where I tell them that the purpose of the laws is not penalties but restoration of normal results as much as possible.

[Vampyr]

No, they simply ask if the offender really can get away with no consequence.

And this is where I tell them that the purpose of the laws is not penalties but restoration of normal results as much as possible.

 

Sadly, this is true, even when the auction, in particular, can no longer be anything resembling “normal”. The next version of the laws will probably reward offfenders.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr is such an optimist. B-)

[pran]

Possibly because many of them remember the old laws, which transferred a second trick in more cases. So the current revoke law is less penalty-like than it used to be.

No, they simply ask if the offender really can get away with no consequence.

And this is where I tell them that the purpose of the laws is not penalties but restoration of normal results as much as possible.

Sadly, this is true, even when the auction, in particular, can no longer be anything resembling “normal”. The next version of the laws will probably reward offfenders.

1: How on earth can the auction in any way be affected by the laws relevant to revoke situations?

 

2: A major reason why we do not penalize but try to restore normal results is that we assume irregularities are accidental, not deliberate.

 

If a director has reason to believe that an irregularity was deliberate he shall apply laws 90 and 91.

[barmar]

1: How on earth can the auction in any way be affected by the laws relevant to revoke situations?

I think she was generalizing, not just talking about revokes.

2: A major reason why we do not penalize but try to restore normal results is that we assume irregularities are accidental, not deliberate.

Indeed. The laws are designed around the philosophy that bridge is played by honest people.

If a director has reason to believe that an irregularity was deliberate he shall apply laws 90 and 91.

And more eggregious activity like collusive cheating isn't addressed at all, it's left for bridge authorities to deal with.