[McBruce]

bluejak, on Mar 17 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

At the moment before the revoke, equity was -100 because they now had one spade trick and were coming to another.

I'm beginning to see your point (and I agree with everything said and not quoted in your latest post), but my difficulty is still in applying the concept of equity to a line of play that we have decided is virtually impossible. Equity is -100 at the moment before the revoke, yes, but this 'equity' is based on an impossible line of play after an earlier infraction.

However, I can see that it is a reasonable interpretation of 64C to find equity for the revoke(s) and adjust the table score to that, then go back and find equity without dummy hiding the card, and then adjust to whichever is best. I think that this is flawed in that it considers a line of play that would never take place without the initial infraction: I'd rather take the infractions in chronological order and decide which lines are likely continuations and decide equity that way.

A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths. There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given. It is the initial infraction that counts.

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on Mar 17 2010, 05:52 PM, said:

A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths.

Was the person who was on the bridge the captain of the vessel? If not, is the captain also being charged? Maritime law is tricky, as the traditional "power of life and death" held by captains at sea is eroded by time and enhanced communications, while the commensurate responsibility remains pretty much as it was. That said, "charged" is not the same as convicted.

Quote

  There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given.  It is the initial infraction that counts.

Oh? I find that hard to believe. What was the initial infraction? Ordering the evacuation of a sinking ship? Seems unlikely.

On the one hand, this might well be a case of a ship's officer's negligence, with no implication of negligence on the captain's part, though that seems unlikely to me. On the other hand, it might well be a case of "somebody died, so somebody has to pay". Aka "if it hesitates, shoot it". On the gripping hand, I'm not sure the example has much to do at all with bridge.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Mar 17 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 17 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

At the moment before the revoke, equity was -100 because they now had one spade trick and were coming to another.

I'm beginning to see your point (and I agree with everything said and not quoted in your latest post), but my difficulty is still in applying the concept of equity to a line of play that we have decided is virtually impossible. Equity is -100 at the moment before the revoke, yes, but this 'equity' is based on an impossible line of play after an earlier infraction.

However, I can see that it is a reasonable interpretation of 64C to find equity for the revoke(s) and adjust the table score to that, then go back and find equity without dummy hiding the card, and then adjust to whichever is best. I think that this is flawed in that it considers a line of play that would never take place without the initial infraction: I'd rather take the infractions in chronological order and decide which lines are likely continuations and decide equity that way.

A ferry went down in the middle of the night off the coast of British Columbia some time ago, resulting in the death of two people who were not found by the crew and were not evacuated. Our major story today is that the person who was on the bridge at the time has been charged with criminal negligence in the two deaths. There is no thought at all in looking at the way the search for passengers throughout the ship was handled once the evacuation order was given. It is the initial infraction that counts.

We have one big problem with multiple infractions: the Laws do not say "do this". So taking infractions in chronological order is a view, but not one based on any Law.

I find your example interesting: I would naturally prosecute the people for a criminally negligent search. I cannot believe that they would escape because of an earlier infraction.

A car driver is overtaken by someone doing 100 mph. He loses his temper, chases after him, and rams him, killing him. Is his defence of "it would not have happened if the other driver had not exceeded the speed limit" going to be accepted? It is certainly true!

[McBruce]

Just updating this one.

I restored the lost two VPs to the non-offenders and gave myself a "ruling without merit" penalty.