Next Laws Home Local Next

Procedural Penalties

by Steve Willner, Boston, USA and David Stevenson

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

The question was asked on the Bridge-laws mailing list [BLML]:
Should you give a Procedural Penalty [PP] in points deducted [ie, as a fine rather than just a warning] when a pair has already had a score adjustment against them?

David Stevenson:
I do not believe it is necessary to give a PP in such a case.

Steve Willner wrote:
You issue a PP:
  1. when there has been a breach of proper procedure, and
  2. you believe it likely to be repeated absent a PP, and
  3. you believe it (much) less likely to be repeated if you assign a PP, and
  4. you think the offender ought to have known better.

For the above reasons, I have to disagree with David on the last point. It seems to me that PP's and score adjustment serve different purposes and ought to be considered separately. If there is damage from an irregularity, adjust the score (unless there is a specific reason not to do so). If the four conditions above are met, issue a PP. Of course it will be harder to meet condition 2 (repeat violations likely) if there is a score adjustment, but it is still quite possible.

David Stevenson:
Sure: but my argument for not giving PPs with an adjustment is that conditions 2 and 3 are not met.

Steve Willner:
Marvin French has raised questions about the legality of PPs for what would normally be score adjustment infractions. While I might be tempted to read L90 narrowly, as he does, it seems to me that the "violates correct procedure" in L90A is very broad indeed.

David Stevenson:
How about "inconveniences other contestants"?

Steve Willner:
All this is much longer than I intended, but the use of PPs is an important question. Are the four conditions above a reasonable summary, or do they need to be modified?

David Stevenson:
Seems well summarised to me.

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

Editor's note:

--------------
Next Laws Home Top Local Next
Last
article
Laws
menu
Main
index
Top of
article
Local
menu
Next
article