[BLML] Well [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sun Nov 10 23:22:48 CET 2013


Thanks for this, Richard. A few weeks ago a player didn't get his ace of  
trumps because of a revoke. I explained that they tried to change the laws  
on this, but it was too hard. He seemed to accept that.

They could have made it "impossible-to-lose" trump tricks. Then order of  
play isn't relevant. But then I think what to do about KQ10 and I can see  
it could get complicated.


On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:11:02 -0500, Richard HILLS  
<richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

>> 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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131110/58c6fef3/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list