[blml] Another wereWolff

[David Grabiner]

Non-NABC+ case 3 is another case in which the comments were unanimous except 
for Wolff, who suggested a ruling which might preserve his sense of equity 
but which both questions the ethics of the NOS and creates a situation in 
which the OS may gain from an infraction.



South may have made a revoke which had no effect on the play, but mixed the 
cards before the revoke could be ascertained.  The TD and Panel both ruled a 
one-trick penalty, in accordance with the Law because a player who mixes his 
cards prematurely could conceal the only evidence of a revoke.  Here are the 
comments:



"(1) The revoke was entirely meaningless with the bridge of the matter - an 
easy 4S making four, +620 N/S.



"(2) Some disagreement as to what cards were played, allowed for in the laws 
with the stipulation that a mixing of the discard pile would normally be 
suggestive of deciding against the mixer-upper.



"(3) The equity of the matter is that E/W wanted something for nothing and 
while that may be barely acceptable at times, the circumstances of this 
particular case cried out for "No revoke".



"To me this case should be decided "No revoke" with an admonition to E/W - 
'In the future, please do not pursue wanting something for nothing." That 
decision, at least to me, fits in well with our Zero Tolerance principle 
extending it to rewarding good sportsmanship and denouncing poor 
sportsmanship. Second choice would be, in this match point tournament, to 
award N/S -100 for poor execution but E/W -620 so that the field is 
protected.'



That quote, "please do not pursue wanting something for nothing," suggests 
that it is improper to call the TD to impose the penalty for a revoke.  The 
TD ruling went against N/S when E/W called the TD, so that would have been 
the time for the admonition to be given, possibly when E/W became aware of 
the revoke (South revoked at trick four and claimed at trick five).  If 
South had left his cards intact, the penalty would have been imposed 
(assuming that the revoke had occurred), and E/W could not give back the 
one-trick penalty.