[blml] About restoring equity

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" <cibor at poczta.fm>
> East cannot be penalized for the second revoke in the
> same suit so the highest automatic penalty we can apply
> is two tricks. ...
> So obviously we must wheel out L64C.

The example is flawed, but BLML has discussed this situation before.

Many people believe the two revokes in the same suit are one 
irregularity, so the adjusted score is the expected result immediately 
before the first revoke.  Others -- and I'm in this second category -- 
believe the two revokes are separate offenses, and the NOS equity is the 
expected result immediately before the _second_ revoke, including the 
penalty from the first revoke.  In other words, what would have happened 
if the offender had revoked exactly once, then followed suit the second 
time.

The new Laws seem to me to favor the second view, though that may be 
only my wishful thinking.

Regardless of your view on how to apply L64C, L72B1 certainly applies if 
the offender "could have known" that having revoked once, a second 
revoke would be "likely" to be advantageous.  I don't see how the "one 
irregularity" crowd can get around that.

> Peter Eidt:
> I thought, we were taught in 2006 (Torino) by the EBL
> that we have to deal with every revoke on its own merit.

As noted above, this seems correct to me.  I was quite surprised to find 
anyone disagree.  It makes no sense to me to penalize a player who 
revokes once more than a player who revokes twice.