[blml] Another wereWolff

[Nigel]

[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.
>
>   
[nige1]

The revoke law could be simpler but it is objective and fair. I'm sure 
that Bobby Wolff has no special relationship with North or South so his 
comments illustrate again that legal gurus often reveal
ignorance of Bridge rules and how the rules of a game should work, even 
in basic cases.

In such circumstances, it seems daft to continue defending other 
legislation that is over-sophisticated and
unnecessarily subjective.