[blml] About restoring equity

[Herman De Wael]

Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Konrad Ciborowski
> Kraków, Poland 
> 
> 

This type of case was settled in Antalya when all the top directors 
(and me) agreed to let L64C equity be based on the situation before 
the first revoke. Thus: declarer gets 5 spades and 2 clubs. 1NT=

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html