[blml] About restoring equity

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
********************************
"Small talk dies in agonies."
                     ~ Shelley
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity


Grattan Endicott a écrit :
>
> +=+ Could you point me to the place, please, where these words
> appear? In Law 12C2 I read: "had the irregularity not occurred"
> and in 72B1 "through the irregularity". It should be added that
> 64C refers to "any established revoke, including those not subject
> to penalty". Law 64B2 lists a second revoke by the same offender
> in the same suit.
>

So, to summarize, the second revoke doesn't incur any systematic
penalty, but is still subject to equity-oriented corrections. Right ?

In which case, in contradiction with the Antalya case, the two revokes
could be treated separately. Or is there one more subtlety ?

Best regards

  Alain

+=+ As regards your first statement, such is my opinion.  Inter alia
I suggest that, as a matter of grammar, "the irregularity" applies as
much to the second infraction as it applies to the first, independently
considered.
       Concerning your second statement, Herman may have made too
sweeping an assertion as to what the directors agreed, esoterically, in
Antalya.  I do not recall being a party to the discussion - although
I may have been present - so I do not know how far they examined
the particular circumstance of damage, or additional damage, inherently
consequent upon a second revoke in the same suit by the same offender.
                    Warmest greetings,
                                               ~ Grattan ~    +=+