[blml] About restoring equity

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"The multitude of the sick shall
not make us deny the existence
of health."       [Emerson]
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity


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
>
>
(Herman DE WAEL)
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=
>
+=+ 'settled' would appear to be an overstatement. If such a
situation occurred in Antalya it was no doubt 'settled' for that
tournament.  This does not preclude consideration by higher
authority.   Konrad should observe that 'had the irregularity
not occurred' is not necessarily the same as "if no irregularity
occurred'.  The law is clear enough, I believe, in establishing
that the second revoke is a second infraction; where we have
scope to explore is in the possibility that ruling on the first
revoke - if there was consequential damage - might perhaps
get rid of the second revoke. But what if the second revoke
is adjudged to have caused damage not caused by the first ?
The subject is complex. Under the 2007 Laws it is seemingly
the case that the words 'Law 64C may apply' in Law 64B2
relate to damage consequent on the second revoke.
                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+