[blml] Multiple infractions (was ...St. Louis) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
.................
> Richard Hills:
> 
> My preference is that multiple infractions should be rectified in
> chronological order, from first to last.
> 
> This is particularly important when one player's infraction
> _partially causes_ an opponent's subsequent infraction.
> 
> The paradigm case, previously discussed on blml, is when declarer's
> RHO leads a plain suit, declarer revokes by trumping, partially
> causing declarer's LHO to also revoke by over-trumping.  Before
> either revoke is established, both declarer and LHO correct their
> revokes.
> 
> Law 62B1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card, but Law
> 62C1 says that LHO's withdrawn card is not a penalty card.
> 
> If the chronological order rule was inserted into the new Laws,
> then it would be clear that Law 62C1 was the relevant Law, and
> justice would be served with LHO's withdrawn card _not_ being a
> penalty card.

This question was addressed by WBFLC in Paris November 1st:

4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and is
over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The committee
noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is
non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defenders' side is
non-offending. The committee decided that the Director should deal with this
situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no
revoke had occurred, under Law 64C.

This means that the Director should proceed directly to Law 64C and seek to
restore equity as if no irregularities had occurred at all. There shall be
no penalty as such from these irregularities.

(Of course when there are multiple irregularities that are independent from
each others then each irregularity should be treated separately.)

Regards Sven