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

[David Burn]

>This assumes that the position of Max is correct, and not the one from Ton.
It does not offer any proof or extra credence to that position.

Suppose that South, declarer in a slam, leads towards the trump ace-queen in
dummy. He is destined to lose the finesse and go down one, for he has
another loser elsewhere. But before he can call for a card from dummy, East
plays the king out of turn. That is an irregularity for which
"rectification" is that the king becomes a major penalty card, so declarer
plays the ace and drops the king.

Flustered, East later produces (unintentionally, of course) a revoke that
earns four tricks for his side. The revoke penalty would restore only two of
those tricks to declarer, so the contract would be down one even after
declarer's successful play in the trump suit. We therefore adjust to the
"equitable" result, which is...what?

According to Herman and Ton (as far as I can make out), if the hand had been
played without any irregularities at all, the contract would have been down
one, so that is what they award. According to Max (and me) the equitable
result is making - if the revoke had not occurred at all, but the penalty
card had, the result would have been making six, so that is what we award.

Now, if you agree with Max (and me) in the case above, but agree with Herman
(and Ton) in the case where the first irregularity is a revoke and the
second irregularity is another revoke, what is the difference between the
first irregularity being a play out of turn and the first irregularity being
a revoke? If you do not agree with Max (and me), why not?

David Burn
London, England