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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott
...............
> >> However, I shall accept an interpretation (by competent
> >> authority) that the card so withdrawn by a defender shall
> > > become a major penalty card.
> >>
> >
> > I think this is covered by Law, we don't need such an
> > interpretation.  John
> >
> +=+ Hence there can be no argument about it?   ~ G ~   +=+

The effect of ruling MPC on the defender's revoke card when there has been a
revoke from both sides in the same trick is rather curious:

When a defender revokes it will usually work to his advantage if he
announces his revoke in time to avoid the revoke becoming established. The
major penalty card will seldom cost his side more than the penalty for the
established revoke.

But when there will be no penalty at all for an established revoke because
both sides revoked in the same trick a defender can never gain anything by
avoiding his revoke becoming established if the consequence is that he is
penalized with a major penalty card!

This is my reason for applying the following "ruling" by WBFLC (part of the
minute quoted below) literally to the extent that all penalties should be
waived when there are revokes by both sides in the same trick:

"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"

Regards Sven