[blml] About restoring equity

[Guthrie]

Konrad Ciborowski
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:
S:AQJT9x H:xxx D:xx C:xx
S:xxx H:xxxx D:xxxx C: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.

[nige1]
Grattan Endicott and Alain Gottcheiner have persuaded me that their 
ruling is correct (provided the second revoke was not deliberate).

Konrad is right that the ruling does not appear to be "equitable" in 
the discredited law-book sense.  Much more importantly, however, from 
a player's view-point: it is objective, consistent and understandable.