[blml] About restoring equity

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Konrad Ciborowski a écrit :
> Hi gang,
>
> Here is a case I made up to discuss certain
> incoherencies in the laws.
>
> MP. Let's say we land in a 1NT contract with this
> pair of hands:
>
> AQJ109x
> xxx
> xx
> xx
>
> xxx
> xxxx
> xxxx
> AK
>
> West leads a club and South plays a spade to the 9. East
> shows out (pitching a heart), marking West with
> Kxxx. South doesn't have enough entries to take
> six spades so he calls for the spade ten from dummy,
> East again pitching something red.
> Amazingly, West ducks. Well, the idiot on South's left can't count
> but this is not South's problem. He crosses back to hand with
> the king of clubs and plays a third spade. West plays
> low, South inserts the jack and all hell breaks lose - East takes
> the king of spades.
> Spades were divided xxx - K and South took two spades
> instead of 5 or 6 and ended up down three.
>
> East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the
> same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply
> is two tricks. As South took two spades instead of 5 or 6
> it is clear that no automatic penalty for the revoke
> can be sufficient compensation for the non-offending side.
> So obviously we must wheel out L64C.
>
> Question 1 - what is your rulling? 1NT = or 1NT +1?
> In other word - do you give South 5 or 6 spade tricks?
> Please reply to this question before reading on.
>
> Let's say that you are generous and rule 1NT +1.
>
> After a while this deal is replayed at some other table.
> The contract is the same and East revokes just the same
> in the first spade trick. But when declarer calls for the
> 10 of spades from dummy East takes his king thus
> avoiding a second revoke in the same suit.
>
> Now South finishes with 5 spade tricks + 2 clubs
> + 2 tricks for the revoke (East won a trick with
> the king of spades which he could legally have played
> to the first spade trick). So this South ends up
> with 9 tricks - 1NT +2.
>
> So at the end of the day the first East benefitted
> by revoking for the second time.
>
> Comments please. 

AG : In the second case, East played badly after the revoke. He could 
have ensured about 8 tricks (depending on red-suit breaks), less 2 for 
the revoke, for 1NT = .
So he lost revoke tricks + tricks in the play. No wonder he scored 
badly. (Smith signals, anyone ?)

The only benefit East got from the second revoke at table 1 was that he 
wasn't given the chance to err. Rub of the green, an in the case where a 
MPC ensures one play the "right" suit..

Best regards

   Alain