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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> >This question was addressed by WBFLC in Paris November 1st 2001:
(Date corrected by me now, the year was missing in my first comment)
> [big snip]
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Not quite.  The WBF LC minute stated that Law 64C applied
> when both sides committed a revoke on the same trick.
> 
> But Law 64C specifically states that it only applies to
> established revokes, and in such cases the Director awards
> an assigned adjusted score.

Although Law 64C is written as to apply only after a revoke is established
the minute has no such limitation. 

The minute doesn't in my opinion make sense unless it shall apply to all
cases of two connected revokes in the same trick, whether established or
not. (Note that it is quite possible for one such revoke to be established
while the other is not!)
 
> Therefore, the WBF LC has not yet ruled on the issue of
> whether or not LHO's withdrawn card is a penalty card if
> both sides commit a NON-established revoke on the same
> trick.
> 
> Or is Sven arguing, by analogy, that the Director must
> immediately award an assigned adjusted score as soon as
> both sides have committed a non-established revoke on the
> same trick, contrary to the Law 62A mandate which requires
> the correction of non-established revokes?

I am arguing that the Director shall have all such revoke cards withdrawn by
the respective players without any consequence other than that the existence
of the card exposed by one defender shall be unauthorized information to his
partner. Whether the situation should result in any adjusted score must be
considered and ruled by the Director after the play of the board is
completed.

However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent authority) that the
card so withdrawn by a defender shall become a major penalty card.
 
Regards Sven