[blml] About restoring equity

[PeterEidt at t-online.de]

> 
> Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued:
> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> ********************************
> "Small talk dies in agonies."
> ~ Shelley
>
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> 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 ~   +=+
 
Peter Eidt:
I thought, we were taught in 2006 (Torino) by the EBL
that we have to deal with every revoke on it's own merit.

The first revoke leads to a 2 trick penalty (Law 64 A2);
there is no need for Law 64 C in this case, as the 2 tricks
do compensate the damage of this revoke.

The second revoke leads to no trick penalty (Law 64 B2).
But here the revoke destroys the communication between
hand and dummy and results in damage for the non-offending
side. Therefore Law 64 C is applied for the scond revoke
(all black tricks that remain after cashing the reds, max. 7)

Now the 2 penalty-tricks for the first revoke are added to a
maximum of 9 tricks.

This approach also solves the problem of 'unfairness'
regarding the outcome of the hand whether the revoker
makes a second revoke or not.

Regards
Peter