[blml] About restoring equity

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
********************************
"Small talk dies in agonies."
                     ~ Shelley
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Konrad Ciborowski" <cibor at poczta.fm>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:51 AM
Subject: [blml] About restoring equity


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. For those who want to rule
1NT + 2 in the first case, too, please provide legal basis.
If you want to apply L72B1 and assign an adjusted
score then please keep in mind that L12C2
says that an assigned adjusted score is
"the most favourable result that was likely had the
irregularity not occurred". And if no irregularity
occurred at all South would never have taken 9
tricks because it is physically impossible here -
even if one drops the king of spades offside.

+=+ "The Director may not award an adjusted score
on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws
is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side"
Adopting this principle the Director must abide by
Law 64C and do no more than 'restore equity', which
I interpret, following WBF guidelines, as being the
score that would have resulted had no irregularity
occurred - the King being taken when the suit is first
finessed. Further, if it is adjudged that there has been
a violation of Law 72B2 a procedural penalty may be
assessed on the guilty side, which might be (say) the
equivalent of a top on the board.
          What may have occurred at another table is
irrelevant.
                       ~ Grattan ~   +=+