[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-June-17, 10:40, said:

In reality we agree

Doesn't sound like it.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-June-16, 15:21, said:

Generally not, because 16D applies, and the TD would likely judge that it prevents normal play of the hand.

Generally not? I would say never.

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-June-17, 10:40, said:

I am not aware of any law using the word "should" in association with (any variation of) the word "require".

I think the word that should be associated with it is "expected to".

[blackshoe]

If you do not do something you "should" do, you have committed an infraction. So how is what you "should" do not required?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-20, 15:54, said:

If you do not do something you "should" do, you have committed an infraction. So how is what you "should" do not required?

Because: (quote) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),
while: (another quote) ”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not)

and a normal understanding of "required" would be that a violation of this is usually penalized.

[blackshoe]

Speeders don't often get ticketed. Does that mean that the law does not require one to observe the speed limit?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-20, 17:43, said:

Speeders don't often get ticketed. Does that mean that the law does not require one to observe the speed limit?

No Bridge laws do (of course) not include any such requirement.

[blackshoe]

I agree that the rules of bridge don’t require players to obey speed limits.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-20, 17:43, said:

Speeders don't often get ticketed. Does that mean that the law does not require one to observe the speed limit?

That's mostly only because they don't get caught. I expect that most speeders who are caught are ticketed.

OTOH, lesser offenses are more likely to receive warnings. I've been stopped twice in my life for crosswalk violations, and both times I got off with a warning.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends what you mean by "caught". Fifty people blow by a speed trap. I have never seen a cop ticket all fifty of them. But I know that he knew they were speeding.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-21, 09:04, said:

I suppose it depends what you mean by "caught". Fifty people blow by a speed trap. I have never seen a cop ticket all fifty of them. But I know that he knew they were speeding.

Yes, caught means that he's actually able to stop you, not that he knows you did it. One cop can only catch one speeder at a time.

Analogously, if the players at the table don't call the TD when an infraction occurs, it may go unpunished (or punished incorrectly if they try to make their own ruling) even if it's a MUST. In general, laws have to give way to practicality: you can't deploy enough cops to catch every speeder out there.

[blackshoe]

Sven, speaking of "required" says "a normal understanding of 'required' would be that a violation of this is usually penalized". In the ACBL at least, almost all violations are never penalized. So I guess nothing is "required".

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to join the "screw the rules, I'm gonna do what I want" crowd.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-21, 11:46, said:

Sven, speaking of "required" says "a normal understanding of 'required' would be that a violation of this is usually penalized". In the ACBL at least, almost all violations are never penalized. So I guess nothing is "required".

Fair enough. I guess I'll have to join the "screw the rules, I'm gonna do what I want" crowd.

This is a bit of an overstatement. It generally depends on the type of "required" procedure.

Most revokes get penalized, for instance. BOOT, LOOT and IB are usually rectified.

[blackshoe]

Most revokes get penalized only in the sense that the rectification uses the word "penalty".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-23, 20:55, said:

Most revokes get penalized only in the sense that the rectification uses the word "penalty".

Where do you find the term "penalize(d)" in connection with revokes?

(And "penalty" seems to occur only in the definition and about handling of penalty cards where the word "penalty" is an adjective, not a noun.)

Are you using an obsolete law book?

[barmar]

Whether or not the law book uses the word, the extra trick that's tranferred is essentially a penalty.

I was actually lumping all types of rectifications in with penalties. But in retrospect, I guess that was wrong. What we're basically talking about are procedural penalties, which are artificial score adjustments distinct from rectifying actions in the bidding or play. And in that case, I think it's true that TDs probably don't assess penalties nearly as much as the Laws suggest they should.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-June-24, 09:28, said:

Whether or not the law book uses the word, the extra trick that's tranferred is essentially a penalty.

No - it is essentially a rectification, and experience has shown that the standard rectification for a revoke now in most cases restores the table result to what it would have been had there been no revoke.

Players not that familiar with the laws of bridge frequently ask when this happens: Shall we not have anything for the revoke?

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

[...]
The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling.
[...]

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-June-24, 02:07, said:

Are you using an obsolete law book?

I would have thought you knew me better than that.

No, I was working from memory. Common usage speaks of "revoke penalty" when referring to the rectification for established revokes, but the current law uses the phrase "automatic trick adjustment". The common usage may be based on language in previous versions of the law.

As you say, "penalty" refers to disciplinary and procedural penalties and is used in the phrase "penalty card".

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-June-24, 12:02, said:

No - it is essentially a rectification, and experience has shown that the standard rectification for a revoke now in most cases restores the table result to what it would have been had there been no revoke.

I don't have any statistics, but this doesn't sound right to me. I suspect that most revokes don't actually affect the result, but there's still a trick transferred (unless the OS doesn't take any more tricks), and occasionally two, if it's established. Unestablished revokes result in a penalty card, and this either makes no difference or is an advantage to declarer.

OTOH, I doubt there's ever much of a penalty associated with a minor penalty card.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-June-25, 09:12, said:

I don't have any statistics, but this doesn't sound right to me. I suspect that most revokes don't actually affect the result, but there's still a trick transferred (unless the OS doesn't take any more tricks), and occasionally two, if it's established. Unestablished revokes result in a penalty card, and this either makes no difference or is an advantage to declarer.

OTOH, I doubt there's ever much of a penalty associated with a minor penalty card.

You are quite correct in your assumption on how little a revoke often affects the table result, but not in your understanding of the reasons for the current law 64.

The main purpose of Law 64 is to simplify the process of rectification after an established revoke reasonably to both sides without the need for lengthy postmortem investigations.

The main alternatives for a law 64 could be:
1: The Director must examine each and every board where a revoke has been established and decide the number of tricks that shall be transferred.
2: The present rules
3: Older rules where the penalty for a revoke was the transfer of two or even three tricks.