[bluejak]

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.

[Vampyr]

Echognome, on May 11 2010, 10:59 PM, said:

One could argue for a slightly different change... "Play ceases after trick 12.  Each player turns over their cards to trick 13 and the trick is won or lost as normal."

You could do this. This would make it even easier for dozy defenders (or declarers) to miss whose lead it actually was.

But anyway, I don't understand the reasoning behind this post, or in fact this entire thread.

The only reason given is that, at trick 13, there are no more decisions to be made (leaving aside the fact that this is not the case before a card is led). The same thing applies to many other situations -- perhaps any time a defender's hand is totally irrelevant (and his partner has a complete count on the hand), this defender should not be penalised for a revoke?

I think that going down this road is very dangerous. And a practical reason is that a silly Law change in this situation would require the opponents to notice the infraction or be breaking the Law themselves.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

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.

It's comments like this that so often make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Disagree with people all you want, but you don't have to pretend they (and everything they have said) don't exist any time they disagree with you.

[bluejak]

I do not pretend they do not exist. I read the arguments: if logical fine: if I find them wrong I say so. I do not understand what you mean that it is difficult to argue with me because of this.

Look at the last post by Vampyr: no-one has written anything in this thread that seems to me to disagree with anything she says, so you slag me off rather than disagree with me. Ok, but it makes you difficult to argue with, not me.

In 1985, an opponent did something slightly unfair - or so his partner thought - and I got a bad board. The situation has never recurred. Do you think that that is an "apparent reason" for a Law change? If you do, I think you need to justify it. If you do not, then this thread is entirely similar.