[aguahombre]

So, is there a definitive answer? Does the rectification in 64A (or64B) go away when the TD applies 64C because the damage was several tricks? Or does he create equity and ALSO tack on the one or two tricks?

[sfi]

You definitely apply the rectification before adjusting under 64C. The situation here is complicated by the second revoke and some confusion about in which order to address them.

As a simple example, imagine revoker having three trumps and revoking only on the last one. Now the revoke adjustment leads to -3. That's not achieving the expected result at the point just before the revoke, so you adjust to 12 tricks.

[aguahombre]

 sfi, on 2012-September-17, 22:36, said:

You definitely apply the rectification before adjusting under 64C.

As a simple example, imagine revoker having three trumps and revoking only on the last one. Now the revoke adjustment leads to -3. That's not achieving the expected result at the point just before the revoke, so you adjust to 12 tricks.

I guess I am dense. Since Declarer's expected result was 12 tricks just before the revoke, and we adjust to 12 tricks, why did we bother applying the rectification under 64A or 64B first?

[blackshoe]

We can only apply 64C if the rectification in 64A or B was insufficient compensation. We can't know if it's insufficient until we know what it is.

[aguahombre]

O.K., we apply it because we can't calculate in our heads that one trick is less than Declarer lost due to the infraction. Now, I still haven't seen the answer. Does it become one trick plus the equity adjustment, or just the equity adjustment when it is greater? I thought the question was simple when I started asking, but I guess not.

Declarer should have made 12 tricks, but only made 9 because of the revoke. Do we adjust to 12 tricks or to 13? There were different answers, earlier in the thread. Which is it?

[campboy]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-18, 01:07, said:

O.K., we apply it because we can't calculate in our heads that one trick is less than Declarer lost due to the infraction. Now, I still haven't seen the answer. Does it become one trick plus the equity adjustment, or just the equity adjustment when it is greater? I thought the question was simple when I started asking, but I guess not.

It's not "one trick plus the equity adjustment". The equity adjustment for the second revoke includes one trick for the first revoke, since it restores the score NOS would have gotten if the second revoke (only) had not happened.

As a technical point, the one trick transfer is part of the table result and not an adjusted score. In the case that a (one-trick) revoke takes declarer from 10 to 8 you transfer the trick first and then compare the result to equity. Since 9<10 you adjust from 9 to 10 (not from 8 to 10).

[c_corgi]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-18, 01:07, said:

Does it become one trick plus the equity adjustment, or just the equity adjustment when it is greater?

It depends what the situation was after the first revoke. In the OP case after the first revoke declarer was entitled to his 12 legitimate tricks plus the revoke penalty. Restoration of equity regarding the second revoke protects this. It is not to be confused with situations where the effect of the second revoke was irrelevent, for example:

Declarer has no further entries to dummy and is cashing dummy's AKQxxxx. A defender holding Jxx revokes on the 3rd round, enabling him to win the 4th and incurring a two trick penalty. Equity would be restored by awarding declarer the 4 extra tricks for his small diamonds instead of the revoke penalty. If the defender revoked on the 4th round as well and won the 5th, equity would still be restored to ensure that the second revoke did not damage the NOS, but since they were at no point entitled to more than the seven natural tricks the second revoke does not incur a penalty.

[mink]

Law 64 does not explicitly state what to do in case of multiple revokes. So we can argue that

• all revokes are handled separately, or that we
  
• first try to use A and B for all revokes, and if that fails to compensate sufficiently, apply C and assign an adjusted score that takes care of all revokes.

To me, solution (2) makes more sense, because (1) combines a treatment that sometimes - randomly - overcompensates (A, B) with a treatment that strives for equity ©.

The argument that if we use method (2) the second revoke effectively gains a trick for the offending side, would only be valid if the revoker consciously committed the second revoke for this reason. However, the likely cause for the 2 revokes was that a trump card was hidden under some other card.

The reason for the damage was not the first revoke or the second revoke, but the two revokes combined - there would have been no damage if either of them was omitted. To look at them separately when adjusting seems odd to me.

Karl

[iviehoff]

 mink, on 2012-September-18, 18:43, said:

Law 64 does not explicitly state what to do in case of multiple revokes...

The argument that if we use method (2) the second revoke effectively gains a trick for the offending side, would only be valid if the revoker consciously committed the second revoke for this reason.

The argument, decisive in my view, against this point of view is that we do not punish non-offenders for the sins of the offenders. This is not "rub of the green". The non-offending side were headed for 6S+1 following the first revoke. We do not award them 6S= in equity because there were subsequent irregularities by the opposition, inadvertent or otherwise, that is to punish them for the sins of others. And, as I also pointed out above, inadvertence is no valid grounds to alter the rectification of the irregularity, inadvertence is never a criterion in law in relation to the adjustment obtained by the non-offending side.

L64 does not explicitly tell us what to do, but it never left those who could understand it in any doubt what to do. And you are overlooking the WBFLC minute I quoted above, which has the effect of law, and which has been applied precisely as written at appeals on revokes in international competition. Although not perfect, it makes it clear, what was never really uncertain, that equity in the hand as a whole is not the right approach.

[paua]

 iviehoff, on 2012-September-19, 02:35, said:

The argument, decisive in my view, against this point of view is that we do not punish non-offenders for the sins of the offenders. This is not "rub of the green". The non-offending side were headed for 6S+1 following the first revoke. We do not award them 6S= in equity because there were subsequent irregularities by the opposition, inadvertent or otherwise, that is to punish them for the sins of others. And, as I also pointed out above, inadvertence is no valid grounds to alter the rectification of the irregularity, inadvertence is never a criterion in law in relation to the adjustment obtained by the non-offending side.

L64 does not explicitly tell us what to do, but it never left those who could understand it in any doubt what to do. And you are overlooking the WBFLC minute I quoted above, which has the effect of law, and which has been applied precisely as written at appeals on revokes in international competition. Although not perfect, it makes it clear, what was never really uncertain, that equity in the hand as a whole is not the right approach.

http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf
Page 15
Repeated in the EBU White Book.

http://www.worldbrid...2008Beijing.pdf
"Law 64C – If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the
second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke."


Having thought about this over the last few days, I can see the logic of it. However, as a little old lady who constantly revokes, it is quite annoying

[gordontd]

 mink, on 2012-September-18, 18:43, said:

The argument that if we use method (2) the second revoke effectively gains a trick for the offending side, would only be valid if the revoker consciously committed the second revoke for this reason.

No, it would gain them the trick whether or not they had consciously committed the second revoke for that reason.

[bluejak]

 ehhh, on 2012-September-16, 13:23, said:

It is agreed that E deserves more than the 1 trick adjustment. The question is: as an equible ruling should the adjustment be 6♠'s making or 6 ♠'s down 1?

I appreciate that the diagram has been altered. However, since without the revoke E/W woudl have made 12 tricks, I assume there is no question of 6♠ -1.

 paua, on 2012-September-16, 17:19, said:

There is obviously damage. The Director uses common sense to restore equity. There is an inescapable loser. The Director should always allow for damage, not have to be asked to consider it, and the restoration transfer rules in 64A do not apply here.

It is not the job of a TD to "use common sense to restore equity". He should apply the Laws, in this case 64C and thus 12C1E.

 paua, on 2012-September-16, 17:19, said:

The Director should consider the experience of the offender and be suspicious that South was trying to get away with the revoke, and record the incident.

People often revoke. Why on earth should this revoke be suspicious?

 paua, on 2012-September-17, 06:03, said:

Sorry, I disagree. You either apply 64B or you apply 64C. To me the key word is EQUITY. The NOS do not get tricks that they cannot possibly make, and there is always one loser. They don't deserve a top board just because their opponents revoked once or twice.

Deserve? It is the lawmakers job to decide what is deserved, not yours. The revoke Laws have a mix of equity and penalisation. If Law 64A requires penalty tricks, then the TD applies the penalty tricks.

 paua, on 2012-September-17, 06:03, said:

Further, we do not now talk about penalties for revokes, we rectify by transferring tricks based on 64A, OR we apply 64C for equity. To me, 64A is actually just a guide to create equity, and is a redundant law, but it keeps the players happy.

In about half of revokes, there are penalty tricks, ie tricks under Law 64A that do not do anything to restore equity. Like other penalties, this is an attempt to get players to concentrate a bit more on following the rules. It has a side advantage, ie that Law 64C is rarely applied, making life easier for club TDs, which is where the vast majority of revokes occur.