[blml] What is equity? review.

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also geggeg at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"There be many wise men that have secret
 hearts and transparent countenances."
                         ~ Francis Bacon.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
+=+ Herman De Wael wrote:
"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="
...............................................................................
I have obtained details of the Antalya case and have
summarised it as follows:
> 1. Declarer is in a small slam which must go one down.
> 2. Defender revokes; application of law will now give
>    declarer twelve tricks.
> 3. This is the situation, and the equity, immediately before
>     defender revokes for a second time in the same suit.
> 4. Defender revokes a second time in the same suit. Under
>    Law 64B2 there is no penalty for this, but the second
>    revoke causes declarer to go four light.
> 5. Declarer, a non-offending party, is entitled to be sufficiently
>    compensated under Law 64C. Equity is to be restored with
>    an adjusted score. The 'equity' is (Code of Practice) the
>    "expectation in the instant prior to the infraction".
> 6. Immediately prior to the second infraction, now under
>    scrutiny, the equity was 11 tricks plus one to be transferred,
>    which is to say small slam made. This was the number of
>    tricks awarded (I have doubly confirmed that the adjusted
>   score was 12 tricks).
> 7. Assuming that had the second infraction not occurred the
>   result would have been 11 tricks plus one to be transferred,
>   I am at a loss to see what alternative might be considered to
>   exist in this case.
> 8. Under the 2007 laws (12B1) 'damage' is defined as "a table
>   result less favourable than would have been the expectation
>   had the infraction not occurred".  Unless declarer then added
>   to his damage, by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)
>   or by wild or gambling action, see12C1(b), it appears the
>   score adjustment would be the same.
.........................................................................................
According to my firm information (above) the award in Antalya did
not correspond to the 'equity' prior to the first revoke. It did in fact
correspond to the equity prior to the second revoke. So where
does this leave us with Konrad's invention?  In his 'first case' the
equity is determined by the expectation at the point when Spade 10
is led from dummy, defender committing no infraction at this point.
If I have understood correctly this was 1NT+2?

                                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+