[blml] About restoring equity

[Ed Reppert]

On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote:

> 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.


In the first case I rule 1NT= to NS, and I look to see if there's any  
at all probable result worse than that for EW.

In the second case, where only one revoke occurred, declarer's two  
"extra" tricks from the revoke penalty are a windfall. Nice for him,  
but irrelevant to score adjustment at the other table.