dan_ehh, on May 12 2010, 12:37 AM, said:
bluejak, on May 12 2010, 12:37 AM, said:
Do people here really not expect to play to the rules and lose a trick when the Laws say they lose a trick? Forget opponents: players who commit infractions should expect to be punished, not expect to weasel their way out of it by any method.
Bluejak, this is a forum which discusses ideas about possible changes to the laws.
Bridge is a game, and in games there is nothing which is a priori correct or incorrect. The rules are revised every once in a while and there is no reason to assume this specific change is wrong.
I think the same logic which prompted the law which deals with revokes at trick 12 applies here, and so I think this is a good addition. You may disagree, but you should provide a better argument than "you committed an infraction therefore you should suffer". There are quite a lot of infractions which do not lead to any penalties and in my opinion leading out of turn at trick 13 should be one of them.
Also, I would like to remind you that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " (I'm sure you recognise the quote)
Yes, but the idea of a change to allow an infraction to be unpunished in a very very rare situation for no apparent reason seems an unnecessary Law change. Note that the next post suggests something different, and that is different. I still think it a waste of time, but at least it is not a suggestion of a Law to make something illegal but not punish it.
As for your quote, everyone quotes that with great meaning: everyone forgets the word "primarily". The primary reason is equity: the secondary is punishing infractions. The quote does not mean you should not punish infractions.