[blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

>
> No, but the infraction here is the same one. South committed an 
> infraction, and he "could have known" that it would work to his advantage.
> In the double revoke case, the player commits an infraction, but he 
> cannot know it would work to his advantage (revoking -once- never 
> does) _unless_ he is aware of the situation, which means he has 
> committed a second, more grave infraction in addition to the one he 
> has done.
>
> In your case, we can believe that South made an inadvertent IB; in the 
> revoke case, we must assume that he has done two wilful infractions.
>
>   

I still don't see the difference within the "could have" paradigm.

Both cases can be analyzed as follows :

- either the infraction (second revoke / IB) is inadvertent (quite possible)
- or the infraction was made purposely, in order to gain an advantage 
(masking the first revoke / shutting out partner), which is a scandal

and we get ourselves out of the fix by saying "since it could have been 
the latter, we penalize as if it were the latter".

Best regards


    Alain