[blml] About restoring equity

[Stefanie Rohan]

I am surprised by the amount of debate on this thread.
 I would have thought that it was obvious that the
second revoke's lack of penalty did not affect in any
way the penalty applied for the first revoke.

Cheers

Stefanie Rohan

--- "PeterEidt at t-online.de" <PeterEidt at t-online.de>
wrote:

> > 
> > Grattan Endicott> [following address discontinued:
> > grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> > ********************************
> > "Small talk dies in agonies."
> > ~ Shelley
> >
>
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> > 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.
> > 
> > +=+ "The Director may not award an adjusted score
> > on the ground that the penalty provided in these
> Laws
> > is either unduly severe or advantageous to either
> side"
> > Adopting this principle the Director must abide by
> > Law 64C and do no more than 'restore equity',
> which
> > I interpret, following WBF guidelines, as being
> the
> > score that would have resulted had no irregularity
> > occurred - the King being taken when the suit is
> first
> > finessed. Further, if it is adjudged that there
> has been
> > a violation of Law 72B2 a procedural penalty may
> be
> > assessed on the guilty side, which might be (say)
> the
> > equivalent of a top on the board.
> > What may have occurred at another table is
> > irrelevant.
> > ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>  
> Peter Eidt:
> I thought, we were taught in 2006 (Torino) by the
> EBL
> that we have to deal with every revoke on it's own
> merit.
> 
> The first revoke leads to a 2 trick penalty (Law 64
> A2);
> there is no need for Law 64 C in this case, as the 2
> tricks
> do compensate the damage of this revoke.
> 
> The second revoke leads to no trick penalty (Law 64
> B2).
> But here the revoke destroys the communication
> between
> hand and dummy and results in damage for the
> non-offending
> side. Therefore Law 64 C is applied for the scond
> revoke
> (all black tricks that remain after cashing the
> reds, max. 7)
> 
> Now the 2 penalty-tricks for the first revoke are
> added to a
> maximum of 9 tricks.
> 
> This approach also solves the problem of
> 'unfairness'
> regarding the outcome of the hand whether the
> revoker
> makes a second revoke or not.
> 
> Regards
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>