[blml] About restoring equity

[Herman De Wael]

Grattan Endicott wrote:
> 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 ~   +=+
> 

What I meant with "settled" was that a running dispute between 
Antonio, Ton and Max was laid to rest when Max agreed to the 
interpretation favored by Antonio and Ton.
As an aside, I also "settled" and agreed that this interpretation was 
a sensible one.

I suspect that every one of them realized that there is the "strange" 
fact that a player who revokes twice is less punished than one who 
revokes only once. Too bad.
As for the player who deliberately revokes a second time, this is 
unlikely to happen. If he lets out that he has done so, there are 
enough laws to punish him just as harshly as a player who did not 
revoke a second time.
And yes, that means that good actors can get away with it. So what?

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