[BLML] Well [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Sun Nov 10 23:11:02 CET 2013


UNOFFICIAL

>>The tricks accrued before a revoke are not subtracted by a rectification for
>>that revoke.
>>.....

ABF National Authority minutes, 20th November 2003, item 4:

Revoke law consultation

The World Bridge Federation had requested comment on the proposed revision
of the revoke laws. While noting that other Committees should also be asked for
comment, the National Authority considered the communication from Grattan
Endicott set out here:

Enquiry to be put to NBOs in consequence of discussions of the Laws Review
Subcommittee in Monaco, November 2003.

The WBF Laws Review Subcommittee decided in Monaco that its proposed
revision of the Code of Laws, planned to come into effect on 1st January 2006,
will make a change in the revoke laws so that only one trick is transferable
following a revoke unless equity demands that a greater number be transferred.
However there were a variety of opinions as to the way in which this principle
might be applied. The Subcommittee decided to seek opinions from NBOs and
Zones as to which of the following is preferred when a revoke occurs:

1. That a trick is to be transferred regardless of whether the offending side
has won a trick or not.

2. That a trick should be transferred if the offending side has won a trick
regardless of whether that trick is won before or after the revoke.

3. As in 2 but not to involve a trick won with a card that could not fail to win
a trick by any legal play (or perhaps limited solely to the case of a trick
won by the highest trump card that had not been played when the revoke
occurred).

4. That a trick should be transferred only when the offending side has won
the revoke trick or a later trick.

5. As in 4 but limited as in 3.

Please email replies to
gesta at tiscali.co.uk and copy also to grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk<mailto:grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk> and use the
subject line as in this email.
~ Grattan Endicott ~
Co-ordinator, WBF Laws Drafting Sub-committee.
18th November 2003.

Without commenting on the merits of the proposed revision the National
Authority was firmly of the view that the fourth alternative should be preferred.
The basis for this view is that ease of application is essential and that any
alternative which contemplated one side winning 14 tricks, or which changed
the result of play before the revoke occurred was unacceptable.

UNOFFICIAL




--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131110/7a6b85e0/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list