[ehhh]

E/W get to 6♠'s on this hand:

...................North
...................♠XXX
...................♥ATXX
...................♦JTXX
...................♣JX
West.......................East
♠AKX......................♠QJTXX
♥JX.........................♥KXX
♦AKQXXXX............♦
♣T...........................♣QXXXX
...................South
...................♠XX
...................♥QXXX
...................♦XX
...................♣AKXXX

E wins the trump lead in hand.
Plays a ♠ to the ♠K in dummy.
He next plays a small ♦ from dummy ruffing it in his hand. This establishes the ♦'s.
Now he draws the trump ending up in the dummy.
(however; S revokes on the draw of trump which isn't discovered till later)
E now embarks on running the ♦'s: A then K etc intending on pitching losers; but, S ruff the ♦ K.

The Director is called and the revoke is ruled established. The hand is allowed to be played out with instructions to call the Director back at the end of the hand.

On return the Director awards a 1 trick adjustment and the contract is scored as 6♠'s down 3 unless E/W feel they were damaged by more than 1 trick.

E/W state that they were damaged as S would not have been able to stop the ♦ run.

Had the revoke not taken place and the ♦;s ran out, this is the likely the 4 card end position:

...................North
...................♠
...................♥ATX
...................♦
...................♣X
West........................East
♠..............................♠Q
♥JX.........................♥KX
♦X............................♦
♣X...........................♣Q
...................South
...................♠
...................♥QX
...................♦
...................♣AK

Now E plays the last ♦!
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?

All 4 players are life masters.

[blackshoe]

Well, first, where did East get that diamond card? he certainly didn't start with it. I'm guessing it's probably a club, which East pitches on his last diamond. Now he leads a heart. 6♠ making six.

[campboy]

South revoked twice if he still has a trump left after three rounds have been played. Now if he had not committed the second revoke (unless I'm missing something) East would have made 12 tricks plus the one trick transfer (for the first revoke) is 13. So 6♠+1 is the correct adjustment, applying 64C to the second revoke.

[mink]

In the end position, south should have only 2 cards, as he started with only 11 cards.

If we assume that the end position is correct, apart from East's ♦ being a ♣, 6♠ make with no doubt.

Karl

[sfi]

campboy, on 2012-September-16, 16:00, said:

South revoked twice if he still has a trump left after three rounds have been played. Now if he had not committed the second revoke (unless I'm missing something) East would have made 12 tricks plus the one trick transfer (for the first revoke) is 13. So 6♠+1 is the correct adjustment, applying 64C to the second revoke.

Law 64B states that there is no rectification for a revoke if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. So 64C leads to 6♠=.

[campboy]

sfi, on 2012-September-16, 16:15, said:

Law 64B states that there is no rectification for a revoke if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. So 64C leads to 6♠=.

On the contrary, law 64C can apply "after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification".

[pran]

sfi, on 2012-September-16, 16:15, said:

Law 64B states that there is no rectification for a revoke if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. So 64C leads to 6♠=.

Can this be correct?

Sorry, I was sleepy - it was past midnight here.

Declarer has five tricks in trump (including the ruff of a Diamond) and 6 tricks in Diamonds. His twelfth trick will be the ♥K and he will be awarded one penalty trick for the revoke (which happened before the ♥A could win a trick.

Law 64C cannot be used to take away a trick from NOS because there was a second revoke.

I too shall rule 6♠=.

This post has been edited by pran: 2012-September-17, 02:29

[ehhh]

thanxs all for replying
i've really screwed up the hands
the commentary is accurate
i've edit the hands
i appreciate all the imput

To adj to 6♠'s making don 't you have to assume the defense will err
as no end play is there and the squeeze is a hit and miss?

[paua]

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

E/W get to 6♠'s on this hand:

...................North
...................♠XXX
...................♥ATXX
...................♦JTXX
...................♣JX
West.......................East
♠AKX......................♠QJTXX
♥JX.........................♥KXX
♦AKQXXXX............♦
♣T...........................♣QXXXX
...................South
...................♠XX
...................♥QXXX
...................♦XX
...................♣AKXXX

E wins the trump lead in hand.
Plays a ♠ to the ♠K in dummy.
He next plays a small ♦ from dummy ruffing it in his hand. This establishes the ♦'s.
Now he draws the trump ending up in the dummy.
(however; S revokes on the draw of trump which isn't discovered till later)
E now embarks on running the ♦'s: A then K etc intending on pitching losers; but, S ruff the ♦ K.

The Director is called and the revoke is ruled established. The hand is allowed to be played out with instructions to call the Director back at the end of the hand.

On return the Director awards a 1 trick adjustment and the contract is scored as 6♠'s down 3 unless E/W feel they were damaged by more than 1 trick.

E/W state that they were damaged as S would not have been able to stop the ♦ run.

Had the revoke not taken place and the ♦;s ran out, this is the likely the 4 card end position:

...................North
...................♠
...................♥ATX
...................♦
...................♣X
West........................East
♠..............................♠Q
♥JX.........................♥K
♦X............................♦X
♣X...........................♣X
...................South
...................♠
...................♥QX
...................♦
...................♣AK

Now E plays the last ♦!
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?

All 4 players are life masters.

6♠ =

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.

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.

[barmar]

ehhh, on 2012-September-16, 17:08, said:

thanxs all for replying
i've really screwed up the hands
the commentary is accurate
i've edit the hands
i appreciate all the imput

Which trick(s) did South revoke on? The commentary seems to say that he revoked on trick 4, but for there to be a problem he would have had to revoke on trick 2 as well.

[aguahombre]

On the real hand, there is no squeeze necessary...The clubs all go away on the diamonds leaving a spade and the KX of hearts in declarer's hand (assuming no revoke). A heart to the king from dummy is the twelfth trick.

Easy adjust to 6s=

[sfi]

campboy, on 2012-September-16, 16:30, said:

On the contrary, law 64C can apply "after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification".

I agree, and that's exactly what law 64B states.

To be a bit more expansive, South must have revoked on tricks 2 and 4. They are both established, but Law 64B tells us that there is no rectification (i.e. Law 64A) does not apply for the revoke at trick 4. Therefore we deal with the revoke at trick 2 by transferring one trick to declarer, for 6♠-3.

Now we look at law 64C, since we have two established revokes. The offending side is sufficiently compensated for the first revoke, since declarer did not go down as the result of it. However, the second revoke does cause an adjustment under this law. Had the defender not revoked the second time, then declarer would have made 6♠ plus the original revoke penalty. So I think you were correct to award 6♠+1.

[iviehoff]

ehhh, on 2012-September-16, 17:08, said:

thanxs all for replying
i've really screwed up the hands
the commentary is accurate
i've edit the hands

There is still an inconsistency. In the commentary you do not mention south revoking twice. Did south really start with 2 or 3 trumps?

Btw, if S revoked twice, I agree with Campboy (6S+1). Campboy has to be correct, because if he isn't, you can escape a revoke penalty by revoking again. If you don't agree that the wording of L64 facilitates this ruling, you can argue it under L23 instead.

[paua]

sfi, on 2012-September-17, 03:58, said:

I agree, and that's exactly what law 64B states.

To be a bit more expansive, South must have revoked on tricks 2 and 4. They are both established, but Law 64B tells us that there is no rectification (i.e. Law 64A) does not apply for the revoke at trick 4. Therefore we deal with the revoke at trick 2 by transferring one trick to declarer, for 6♠-3.

Now we look at law 64C, since we have two established revokes. The offending side is sufficiently compensated for the first revoke, since declarer did not go down as the result of it. However, the second revoke does cause an adjustment under this law. Had the defender not revoked the second time, then declarer would have made 6♠ plus the original revoke penalty. So I think you were correct to award 6♠+1.

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.

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.

Regards

[sfi]

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.

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.

Regards

You can't ignore where the laws point you just because you want to achieve equity. Law 64A prescribes a set adjustment (whatever you want to call it), and 64B tells you what to do with the second, separate offence. It even directs you to 64C, so it's clearly not a simple either/or situation.

[paua]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-17, 05:40, said:

There is still an inconsistency. In the commentary you do not mention south revoking twice. Did south really start with 2 or 3 trumps?

Btw, if S revoked twice, I agree with Campboy (6S+1). Campboy has to be correct, because if he isn't, you can escape a revoke penalty by revoking again. If you don't agree that the wording of L64 facilitates this ruling, you can argue it under L23 instead.

Law 23 just allows the Director to adjust for damage, restoring equity, which is standard practice now with any revoke situation. See Law 12B :

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.


If the Director felt that either revoke was deliberate then they could consider a PP, but I think you would need to see some history of this from the player.

[campboy]

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

They don't deserve a top board just because their opponents revoked once or twice.

paua, on 2012-September-17, 06:13, said:

2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

[iviehoff]

paua, on 2012-September-17, 06:13, said:

Law 23 just allows the Director to adjust for damage, restoring equity, which is standard practice now with any revoke situation.

I'm sure that TDs would in general apply Law 23 to the equity in the situation applying immediately before the irregularity which gave rise to its application. In the case of two revokes, we have the additional assistance of this regulation, which has the effect of law:

WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3:

"If there are two revokes on the same board by the same side the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke."

Actually, I (and many others) would argue that this minute is faulty, and what it ought to say is "the position immediately before the second revoke". Because why should the equity in the play decisions between the two revokes be disregarded? So whilst there can be discussions over exactly when between the two revokes we should attribute equity to, what is quite clear is that we are not discussing the position at any time before the first revoke.

In general, I'm surprised you think it is appropriate that a side should lose the prescribed benefits from the rectification of their opponent's irregularity because their opponent, even inadvertently, commits another irregularity. Also I'm surprised that you would seek to determine whether an irregularity was deliberate and make the decision on those grounds. Law 23 exists in the form it does precisely because we should not have to decide whether an irregularity was deliberate, but rather rectify irregularities mechanically without deciding whether deliberate or inadvertent. Asserting that something was done deliberately is very dangerous, it looks like accusing someone of cheating, which is not done lightly and without considerably more evidence than applies to the ordinary rectification of an irregularity, including the application of Law 23.

[iviehoff]

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

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.

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.

Newcomers to this forum regularly say things like this and proceed to quote Law 12. But whilst L12 states that the overall objective of rectification is achieving equity, there are many individual situations in the laws where there is a specific rectification prescribed which does not do that. Law 12 does not make them all wrong and inapplicable, and allow the director to apply equity instead, as campboy has pointed out to you. (Although in some cases he can apply equity instead if the automatic rectification is insufficient to the non-offending side.)

Law 64A is not "a guide to create equity", it is an automatic rectification which is automatically applied. Though its application, sides can make tricks they could not possibly have made without a revoke. If as a defender you possess the ace of trumps but revoke on or before the trick when you play it, your opponents can indeed make their grand slam missing the ace of trumps. As director, you do not have the discretion to apply L64C when L64A applies.

[paua]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-17, 08:05, said:

Newcomers to this forum regularly say things like this and proceed to quote Law 12. But whilst L12 states that the overall objective of rectification is achieving equity, there are many individual situations in the laws where there is a specific rectification prescribed which does not do that. Law 12 does not make them all wrong and inapplicable, and allow the director to apply equity instead, as campboy has pointed out to you. (Although in some cases he can apply equity instead if the automatic rectification is insufficient to the non-offending side.)

Law 64A is not "a guide to create equity", it is an automatic rectification which is automatically applied. Though its application, sides can make tricks they could not possibly have made without a revoke. If as a defender you possess the ace of trumps but revoke on or before the trick when you play it, your opponents can indeed make their grand slam missing the ace of trumps. As director, you do not have the discretion to apply L64C when L64A applies.

Thanks, I stand corrected.