[blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long]

[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
+=+ For the benefit of Herman De Wael I quote below
exchange of opinion with Max Bavin (who will not be
drawn into further open correspondence on the subject).
I quoted the Konrad question and the reference by
Herman to an Antalya decision. I asked him to clarify:
      Max replied:

"The Antalya case was indeed directly comparable. Declarer
was playing in a hopeless small slam; it was destined for 1-off.
However, a defender revoked. The revoke didn't actually
cost anything; declarer still had the same 11 tricks as before.
But, add one trick for the revoke penalty and the contract
would be made.
However, the defender revoked for a second time (in the
same suit) and this cost declarer plenty of tricks. He lost
control of the hand and the contract went 4-off.
The ruling we gave at the time was 'contract made'. I did
actually mention it to you at the time. I was aware that Edgar
would have disagreed, as he had always maintained that
"equity" is the equity of the hand without any revokes at all.
There was no appeal (shame really; but then could we trust
all appeal committees to get it right?).
Later that day over dinner we were discussing the case with
Ton and Herman. I did indeed become persuaded that
'punishment' has no part to play in determining 'equity'. So,
the equity of the hand is 1-off; comparable to 1NT just making
in the case below.
However, I was most uncomfortable about this; I just
don't like the idea that you can revoke for a second time and
end up better off than had you followed suit. So, I concluded
that 72B1 is the way to go. It is true that I did not share my
72B1 thoughts with Herman, or with anyone else for that
matter, so he will be unaware of this. But next time I get the
case I'll still be ruling slam made, and one day this might even
get tested by an appeal committee. Herman does not know
that this is what I intend, and for sure he will disagree with me;
I think Antonio might also disagree. I'm not so sure where
yourself and Ton stand on this at present.
Basically, I am persuaded that punishment has nothing to do
with equity. But it does not then follow that I am a member
of the slam off or no overtricks in 1NT brigade as I am
content that 72B1 offers the solution.
Your correspondent makes some excellent points, including
casting doubt on whether 72B1 really solves the case (though
clearly he's already considered the 72B1 solution for himself -
well done for that). As he correctly says, we end up in 12C2
and with the most favourable result likely had THE irregularity
not occurred. But I think we're still OK. True, if there was no
irregularity at all then the slam goes off (and there are no
overtricks in 1NT).
But I'm using 72B1 for the second revoke - not for the
first one. The irregularity is the second revoke; what is
outcome of the hand if this had not occurred?
Answer: small slam made in my case, and 1NT+2 in
the (Konrad Ciborowski) case below.
I am happy to be quoted on this (though I don't then
want a whole load of BLML correspondence as a result)."
....................................................................................
To the above I replied:
        I am having difficulty getting my head round the Antalya
 case. Let me break it down into its parts:
 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.
 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 exist in this case.
   Can you enlighten me as to the nature of my confusion?
   Where is the gain in this by the offender?
 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
.....................................................................................
There was then a comment from David Burn, who was privy
to the exchange. He said (and I think he, too, will not object to
being quoted):
"What Max says is obviously right. Suppose that South plays
in a slam that is going down one, but East revokes so that (after
adjustment) it will make. At this point, the "equity" for both
sides is that the slam makes - there is no question of "punishment",
but the "equity" in any position in any game can be established
only when taking into account what might happen in the future
having already taken into account whatever penalties may be
appropriate for what has taken place in the past.

Now suppose that East, instead of revoking again, shoots
declarer through the head. This is an irregularity per (1997) Law
74A2, since it has clearly interfered with declarer's enjoyment of
the game. Fortunately South is part of a team of six, so the
match can continue at least until such time as East is properly
arraigned for murder, a process that according to the latest
crime statistics could take anything up to forty years.

What should the result on the board be? That the slam made,
of course."
...........................................................................................
Max further commented:
"We are in total agreement that the final outcome of the hand
should be 12 tricks made. Indeed, this was the ruling I gave
in Antalya and it's the ruling I will give the next time it happens
as well. The people who are in disagreement are Herman (for
sure) and Antonio (probably). So too was Kaplan, I think, as
he was once quoted as saying that the equity was the situation
without any revokes at all - in other words 11 tricks in the
Antalya case. You are content that 64C leads us straight to
this solution; so too is Burn. I am not so sure that it does, but
am content that 72B1 leads us to the same solution.
     Antonio's view is that punishment has no role to play in
determining equity. In other words, that we should consider
the outcome of the hand as though the revoke law was 'there
is no automatic penalty for a revoke, but the Director shall
restore any damage which arises therefrom'. The first revoke
does not actually damage declarer, so the equity of the hand
is still 1-off at that stage. I can tell as I write that you are not
going to be convinced one jot, because I confess that neither
am I. Maybe you should ask Herman or Antonio to try to
convince you?"
..............................................................................................
My position in regard to all of the above is this:
1. David Burn expresses well the logic of the situation. I am
in complete agreement with him.
2. Kaplan's opinion went out of the window in 1999 when
we redefined damage (ergo equity) in the WBF Code of
Practice. Along with that goes Herman's argument.
3. Let me remind you once more of that CoP definition:
   "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would
have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction."
Study this with care, and in particular the word 'expectation'.
The expected *result* in the Antalya case in the instant prior
to the second infraction was twelve tricks.
4. Moving to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, the fact that
the definition of damage is henceforward consolidated into the
law (see 12B1) gives added force to the foregoing. The laws
establish plainly enough that the second revoke is a separate
infraction from the first (as Max observes in his comments).
.........................................................................................
Amen, as a friend would say.                  ~ Grattan ~   +=+