[blml] About restoring equity

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
********************************
"Small talk dies in agonies."
                     ~ Shelley
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] About restoring equity


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?

+=+ Well, leaving aside your agreement that the interpretation is
a sensible one - which has no relevance - I do not agree, if this
is intended, that it is in accordance with law (1997 or 2007) that
if there is damage, or additional damage, consequent upon the
second revoke in the same suit this is not to be compensated
under 64C if the transfer of the trick(s) under the revoke law
generally insufficiently compensates the non-offending side.
                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+