[blml] About restoring equity

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Konrad Ciborowski
> 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.

Five of course. Equity is to be established according to the situation at
the moment of the first irregularity, i.e. when South had just played the S9
from dummy.

> 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.

I wonder how the red suits should be distributed since West made an
invitational lead in Clubs instead of leading a Heart or a Diamond and it
apparently never occurred to East to attack in either red suit?

Incidentally, I would also like to see a reasonably sane auction for South
to end up as declarer in 1NT?

Regards Sven