BBO Discussion Forums: Is It Always Right To Call TD for Revoke - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Is It Always Right To Call TD for Revoke

#21 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-29, 04:38

View PostTrinidad, on 2015-January-29, 04:14, said:

Pran, what part of barmar's "not only" is so hard to understand?

Rik

That punishment is not at all an intended element in the revoke laws.
0

#22 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2015-January-29, 08:31

Perhaps you should look at it another way.

Declarer has shown 7 Spades on the bidding, 2 hearts, and at least 1 club. This suggests that he is likely to have two or three diamonds - which he hasn't, and also suggests that your partner has 7 hearts (which he hasn't). If declarer has 3 diamonds (7=2=3=1) then you are going to have to hold onto your diamonds. If he hasn't then you don't have to.

It is very likely that you are going to miscount the hand and this could adversely affect your defence. Unless you call the TD you may not (apologies if not true) be aware of the results of the revoke.

The fixed penalty simplifies the TD's job substantially as generally there are going to be many ways that the hand can be played and 1 trick would seem to be the most likely loss. (I assume it was a 1-trick penalty). In this case you have gained.

Note law 81C5 - if you ask the director "yes my opponent revoked but it was inadvertent and we didn't lose anything and don't want to take advantage, could you waive the penalty" - then he may waive (at his discretion) the penalty.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#23 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-29, 08:45

View Postweejonnie, on 2015-January-29, 08:31, said:

Note law 81C5 - if you ask the director "yes my opponent revoked but it was inadvertent and we didn't lose anything and don't want to take advantage, could you waive the penalty" - then he may waive (at his discretion) the penalty.

Quote

to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.

My emphasis.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#24 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-January-29, 08:52

View Postpran, on 2015-January-29, 04:38, said:

That punishment is not at all an intended element in the revoke laws.

Then we just have to disagree on that.

My understanding is that the lawmakers were well aware of the fact that the revoke laws were not at all about restoring equity (while making sure that equity will be at least restored). They intended the law to be simple and fully intended the revoker to pay the price for the simplicity of the law. They saw that price as a punishment for failing to follow one of the most basic rules in bridge.

If you understand that differently, then we just have a disagreement.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
3

#25 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-January-29, 09:27

I came to my conclusion based on the fact that the lawmakers didn't shy away from requiring the TD to make judgements about equity when resolving most other infractions, many of which are at least as complicated as figuring out what would have happened without a revoke. Yes, one aim of this law seems to be to keep it simple. But the fact that it doesn't even suggest that the TD might reduce the penalty in cases where the revoke was irrelevant to the result, which can often be determined easily, suggests that there's an intent to punish. On the other hand, it goes out of its way to mention that he can increase the penalty if the default is insufficient to redress the damage.

So it will always at least restore equity to the NOS, but the OS may be punished more than the damage they caused.

#26 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2015-January-29, 13:13

View Postpran, on 2015-January-29, 03:30, said:

I would like to hear your explanation on the fact that every bit of the (alleged) punishment element vanishes when the damage from the revoke is so great that it is just compensated with the standard Application of Laws 64A and 64C.

Where is the logic that a punishment element shall be effective only when there is little or no damage from the revoke?


Why should we expect logic in the Laws?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#27 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-29, 15:37

View Postgnasher, on 2015-January-29, 13:13, said:

Why should we expect logic in the Laws?

Because there is.

And those who understand the laws will see it.

The others??? Well.
0

#28 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2015-January-30, 05:28

Legal stuff can get complicated.. lol. So glad I do science for a living :)
0

#29 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-30, 07:30

View Postpran, on 2015-January-29, 04:38, said:

That punishment is not at all an intended element in the revoke laws.

The bit we are concerned with is:

Quote

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

This suggests there must be at least one instance where punishment is at least a secondary intention of the law. If it's not in the revoke laws, where is it?
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#30 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-30, 09:23

View Postgordontd, on 2015-January-30, 07:30, said:

The bit we are concerned with is:

Quote

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

This suggests there must be at least one instance where punishment is at least a secondary intention of the law. If it's not in the revoke laws, where is it?

Or it recognizes that although punishment is not the intention of the Law it may sometimes be felt as a consequence.
0

#31 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-January-30, 09:55

View Postpran, on 2015-January-30, 09:23, said:

Or it recognizes that although punishment is not the intention of the Law it may sometimes be felt as a consequence.

Some players feel that a director call "against" them is itself punishment. IAC I don't think the lawmakers have gone there.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#32 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-January-30, 10:36

View Postpran, on 2015-January-30, 09:23, said:

Or it recognizes that although punishment is not the intention of the Law it may sometimes be felt as a consequence.

That would be a fine interpretation if the introduction said "not designed as punishment". But the word "primarily" suggests that this is a secondary goak of the laws. And the revoke law is one place where this manifests itself. Another place where I think it gets into punishment territory is the BOOT laws that bar partner.

#33 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-30, 13:04

View Postbarmar, on 2015-January-30, 10:36, said:

That would be a fine interpretation if the introduction said "not designed as punishment". But the word "primarily" suggests that this is a secondary goak of the laws. And the revoke law is one place where this manifests itself. Another place where I think it gets into punishment territory is the BOOT laws that bar partner.

"Primarily" does not exclude possible secondary effects. Such secondary effects need not be intentional parts of a design.

I wouln't call it a punishment when a player is forced to pass in order to prevent him from using critical UI received through an illegal action by his partner?
0

#34 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-January-30, 13:46

View Postpran, on 2015-January-30, 13:04, said:

I wouln't call it a punishment when a player is forced to pass in order to prevent him from using critical UI received through an illegal action by his partner?


If this is neutral, then under the current laws people who make insufficient bids are rewarded.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
1

#35 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-January-30, 14:17

View Postpran, on 2015-January-30, 13:04, said:

I wouln't call it a punishment when a player is forced to pass in order to prevent him from using critical UI received through an illegal action by his partner?

View PostVampyr, on 2015-January-30, 13:46, said:

If this is neutral, then under the current laws people who make insufficient bids are rewarded.

?????
0

#36 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-02, 09:57

View Postpran, on 2015-January-30, 13:04, said:

I wouln't call it a punishment when a player is forced to pass in order to prevent him from using critical UI received through an illegal action by his partner?

It's punisment to their partnership, since it makes it very difficult for them to find their optimal contract -- partner is essentially forced to guess where they belong.

#37 User is offline   ggwhiz 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Joined: 2008-June-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-02, 10:21

I would always call in a tournament as an obligation to the field, specifically flighted events where it may affect the masterpoint awards in whatever strat.

However in a social club setting which I assume this is I would tend to let it go or request the Director waive the penalty as Mycroft points out.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
0

#38 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-February-02, 10:23

Is there no "obligation to the field" in a club event, or do you consider the obligation to the field to be different in such an event?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#39 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-February-02, 11:56

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-February-02, 10:23, said:

Is there no "obligation to the field" in a club event, or do you consider the obligation to the field to be different in such an event?

There are principles and then there is pragmatism.

Of course, there also is an "obligation to the field" at the club.

But if the field of your club consists of six tables of very mixed standard where you expect each traveller to show at least two inexplicable results, there is not much reason to protect whatever is left of the field.
And the players in that field don't have the illusion that they have any field protection. They know it is a lottery and that their excellent squeeze declarer play will not beat the result at table 4, where Uncle Bob and Aunt Millie are screwing up the defense.

This is different in a tournament. I know that on a few occasions, I missed the money with a difference of 1 MP. I normally think that was because I sh/could have done something better and that I am to blame. But if I would find out that a player failed to call the TD for a revoke because he wanted to be nice to the opponents (whereas another player correctly called the TD, leading to a top for them and a 2MP decrease for us) and this cost us the money, I would be annoyed. Not because of the money (which would be spent on buying drinks for friends anyway) or the masterpoints (who cares), but because we didn't get the honor and the glory that we deserved.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#40 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,059
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2015-February-02, 14:30

I would add to my statement: "if you *want* the revoke to be handled, then yes, you absolutely must call the TD, every time. Revoke law is too complicated to trust anyone at the table with, even if they're a TD."
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
1

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users