[lamford]

---

The auction was not relevant, but it was, uncontested, (Dealer South, Love All, matchpoints): (Pass)-1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣-3NT-4♠. South led the ♣J which dummy won with the A♣. Declarer now cashed the K♣ then the Q♣, discarding his red-suit losers (!) - the heart first - and South ruffed the second of these and attempted to cash the A♦. West followed with the 5♦ and North, around 13 seconds later (one for each club, no doubt) wondered why there only appeared to be nine clubs in this pack and called the director. The TD instructed that play continue, and 12 tricks were made. He adjusted the score to 11 tricks, N/S -450. He quoted the relevant Laws 64A2, 64B2 and 64C.

North-South appealed and an eminent AC, sitting in Poznan, of Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman de Wael (Scribe, Belgium), PO Sundelin (Sweden), Jan van Cleeff (Netherlands) and Grattan Endicott (Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, consultant), also cited the WBFLC Laws Committee minute of 10th October 2008, verbatim:

"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".

The AC upheld the TD decision. Do you agree with this eminent panel?

[WellSpyder]

The decision does not seem to me to be consistent with the minute quoted. Without the second revoke declarer was booked for 10 tricks, losing the ruff, whichever red-suit loser was not discarded at trick 2 and a 1-trick penalty for the first revoke. So that is the equitable result to restore after the second revoke, in my view.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2011-June-22, 04:18, said:

The decision does not seem to me to be consistent with the minute quoted. Without the second revoke declarer was booked for 10 tricks, losing the ruff, whichever red-suit loser was not discarded at trick 2 and a 1-trick penalty for the first revoke. So that is the equitable result to restore after the second revoke, in my view.

Two arguments were propounded (from the bulletin):

(a) after the second trick (but before the ♣Q is played), the normal result is 12 tricks, to which one penalty trick is applied, so equity is 11 tricks.

(b) after the ♣Q is played, to which East should follow suit, the normal result is 11 tricks (losing the ruff and a heart trick), so equity is 10 tricks.

"In the end, the Committee found that this situation so closely resembled the one described in Law 64B2, that 11 tricks was deemed the equitable result as per Law 64C."

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2011-June-22, 04:26, said:

the Committee found that this situation so closely resembled the one described in Law 64B2, ...

Doesn't make sense to me! The situation IS the one described in Law 64B2, but it is still subject to a possible equity adjustment.

I also don't see why the fact that it was a mistake for declarer to play the third round of ♣s should mean the committee acts as if he didn't do it!

[campboy]

I agree that the ruling is correct according to the minute. Perhaps it would make more sense for the minute to say "...the position immediately before the second revoke", but it doesn't.

It is a shame that North took so long to realise that something was wrong -- if he had called attention to the problem before the second revoke became established his side would have taken two tricks and been given an extra one for the first revoke.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-June-22, 05:18, said:

I agree that the ruling is correct according to the minute. Perhaps it would make more sense for the minute to say "...the position immediately before the second revoke", but it doesn't.

It is a shame that North took so long to realise that something was wrong -- if he had called attention to the problem before the second revoke became established his side would have taken two tricks and been given an extra one for the first revoke.

I am not sure you are right that the ruling is correct according to the minute, either. The first revoke became established when declarer led the Q♣ to trick three, not when he discarded the heart (which was discarded on the king of clubs). At this moment his equity was 10 tricks. But the WBFLC minute does not define what exactly is meant by "after the first revoke", and the AC correctly state there are several possible interpretations.

I don't think there is any obligation on North to call the TD at any specific time. Many assume their partners will not revoke, and here North was a bit slow to realise anything was wrong, but that should not deny him redress.

In my opinion the TD and AC got this completely wrong. There is no need whatsoever for them to decide what is meant by equity and when. They should have applied the following tests:

a) Was there an infraction by the declarer?
b) Did she benefit from the infraction?
c) Could she have known that she would?

On a). Yes.
C. Requirement to Follow Suit
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

On b). Yes. If she had followed to the third club, she would have made 11 tricks, and 10 after the one-trick penalty. By revoking she was given 11.

On c). Yes. She could have known that following would have made 10 tricks. She could have known that South would ruff this trick, and by revoking on it she would make 11 tricks.

Law 23 states:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity

Now, if the Director was not of the opinion that the declarer in this situation "could have been aware" the infraction would benefit her, then he does not award an adjusted score, and the AC might be correct. However, in my view, that would be a perverse opinion. In this case, the defender "should have known" that the infraction would be to her advantage. Just by adding up to 13, and reading the Laws of Bridge.

Law 23 in its present guise is designed to stop "accidental" errors like the Alcatraz Coup. That is why I believe the TD and AC were quite wrong in this case.

[campboy]

Yes, you are right. But I still think the minute is badly worded if we need to go to law 23. It doesn't make sense for equity to be determined from the position after the first revoke, which could be several tricks before the second.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-June-22, 06:49, said:

Yes, you are right. But I still think the minute is badly worded if we need to go to law 23. It doesn't make sense for equity to be determined from the position after the first revoke, which could be several tricks before the second.

Well, the minute does not say "immediately after", so a reasonable interpretation would be the highest equity for the non-offenders at any time after the first revoke, up to the time the second revoke is established. And I think the revoke only occurs when it is established, which is when the Q♣ is played, so even applying the wording of the minute it is 10 tricks.

It seems that the WBFLC have realised that there was an error, and Ton is metaphorically tearing his hair out.

[iviehoff]

I wouldn't say that there was really a mistake in the minute, rather that the TD and AC seem to have been blinded by an over-literal reading of it, and so failed to notice it doesn't have to be read like that and clearly shouldn't be read like that.

I understood the WBFLC minute as simply confirming, what in any case should have been reasonably obvious, that equity for the second revoke should take into account the fact that the NOS are due to receive penalty tricks from the first revoke, and they should keep any net benefit they would expect to receive from that. It didn't occur to me that someone would take it as meaning that whatever declarer did to reduce further his equity between the first revoke and committing the second revoke should be ignored. On this occasion that had Law 23 to escape from that absurd conclusion, though that would not always be available, so we should not seek to rely on it.

This hand just goes to show that not every extraordinary hand Lamford produces to explore the outer regions of the laws is carefully constructed, brilliant constructor that he is.

[nige1]

Thank you Paul. "Equity" strikes again
NS could ask the director to waive redress for the second revoke

iviehoff, on 2011-June-22, 10:05, said:

I understood the WBFLC minute as simply confirming, what in any case should have been reasonably obvious, that equity for the second revoke should take into account the fact that the NOS are due to receive penalty tricks from the first revoke, and they should keep any net benefit they would expect to receive from that. It didn't occur to me that someone would take it as meaning that whatever declarer did to reduce further his equity between the first revoke and committing the second revoke should be ignored.

T S Eliot in the Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock said:

In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse

[Rossoneri]

Agree that the Minutes are not very clear, and should be better worded. Also agree that 10 tricks seem the most logical result to adjust to.

Also have to admit that I suspected this was another construction till I saw the word "Poznan".

[axman]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-22, 10:05, said:

I wouldn't say that there was really a mistake in the minute, rather that the TD and AC seem to have been blinded by an over-literal reading of it, and so failed to notice it doesn't have to be read like that and clearly shouldn't be read like that.

I understood the WBFLC minute as simply confirming, what in any case should have been reasonably obvious, that equity

Obvious?

The fulcrum for adjusting the score is the L64C requirement that the TD deem that the other side was insufficiently compensated by L64. The law provides no specification for knowing what constitutes insufficiently compensated; only that the TD deem it so.

There should be some feeling that as a proper remedy because the law disinclines transfer tricks for subsequent revokes then properly by law there is to be no compensation for those subsequent established revokes. And perhaps this has some bearing to the TD as to the reason for deeming [the other side] insufficiently compensated [the law does not specify that there need be a sane reason].

Thus, until the TD has deemed that the other side was insufficiently compensated, the matter of equity is mute [L12]. And it is notable that there is no specification upon which to recognize what equity is.

iviehoff, on 2011-June-22, 10:05, said:

for the second revoke should take into account the fact that the NOS are due to receive penalty tricks from the first revoke, and they should keep any net benefit they would expect to receive from that. It didn't occur to me that someone would take it as meaning that whatever declarer did to reduce further his equity between the first revoke and committing the second revoke should be ignored. On this occasion that had Law 23 to escape from that absurd conclusion, though that would not always be available, so we should not seek to rely on it.

This hand just goes to show that not every extraordinary hand Lamford produces to explore the outer regions of the laws is carefully constructed, brilliant constructor that he is.

[lamford]

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-22, 10:38, said:

Agree that the Minutes are not very clear, and should be better worded. Also agree that 10 tricks seem the most logical result to adjust to.

Also have to admit that I suspected this was another construction till I saw the word "Poznan".

I am flattered that you should think it was one of my constructions. Indeed I even suspected it was something I dreamt until I saw the hand in this morning's bulletin at Poznan!

[WellSpyder]

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-22, 10:38, said:

I suspected this was another construction till I saw the word "Poznan".

I didn't just suspect it, I was convinced of it! The hand just seemed so perfectly designed to highlight the possible alternatives.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-June-22, 07:20, said:

Well, the minute does not say "immediately after", so a reasonable interpretation would be the highest equity for the non-offenders at any time after the first revoke, up to the time the second revoke is established.

I am not convinced. There are (or could be, at any rate) lots of positions after the first revoke but before the second, yet the minute says "the position". I don't think I've ever heard someone say "the X after Y" meaning anything other than how I interpreted it here.

[jhenrikj]

Ton Koiijman made this very clear in San Remo. When applying 64C to the second revoke, equity is the result that would have been if the second revoke never took place.

It's very easy to realize that this is the correct interpretation. If the declarer doesn't revoke the second time the result will be 10 tricks. After the second revoke the result is 11 tricks. The declarer has gained one trick from the second revoke and that's what 64C must prevent.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Ton Koiijman made this very clear in San Remo. When applying 64C to the second revoke, equity is the result that would have been if the second revoke never took place.

He may have done but that does not give it the force of law. The problem here is that

a. I think most people feel that 10 tricks is equity
b. the law book seems to support them
c. Various committees in Beijing and San Remo have given what they think is flesh and I think is confusion to the law
d. No-one is clear as to which pronouncements are binding
e. the law is an ass when a situation like this can happen and then eminent directors and bridge lawyers can't agree on the result.

Roll on 2017 and yet another change to the revoke law. It's all very well to talk about the laws being designed for equity rather than punishment but when equity is denied to the non offending side as it was here we haven't got things right.
I confess I suggested to the appellant that the committee would need to be clinically insane not to overturn the TD's decision. I'm not convinced I was wrong about this!

[Vampyr]

A defender who was very au fait with the revoke law could have piped up when the third round of clubs was ruffed: Having none, partner? Are you sure? Then the director would have arrived and the second revoke would have been corrected, resulting in 11 tricks, net ten after the rectification. Apparently the defender was puzzled and took a few seconds to take it all in; by then the declarer had established the second revoke, to his considerable advantage.

The problem must have been that the director and committee members were not native English speakers and were familiar only with translations of the Laws. It is easy to imagine "could have known" being translated poorly; similar types of modal verbs often have very different meanings in other languages.

[Vampyr]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-June-24, 04:23, said:

Roll on 2017 and yet another change to the revoke law.

My suggestion: two tricks per revoke unless this is insufficient compensation for the non-offenders. Don't like it? Follow suit next time.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-June-23, 12:05, said:

I am not convinced. There are (or could be, at any rate) lots of positions after the first revoke but before the second, yet the minute says "the position". I don't think I've ever heard someone say "the X after Y" meaning anything other than how I interpreted it here.

Well, I can certainly accept that your view is reasonable, but let us look at the English. During the last season, Liverpool FC replaced Roy Hodgson with Kenny Dalglish. The position of Liverpool in the table after Dalglish returned was, almost invariably, much higher. Would you interpret "the position after Dalglish returned" as "the position immediately after Dalglish returned"? I wouldn't.

The minute states "the equity after the first revoke". Of course, the declarer might be expected to score a different number of tricks at several stages after the first revoke, depending on what views he takes - he might have several plausible lines for example. Which equity do we take? Grattan would argue the equity immediately after the first revoke - in fact the equity at the end of the trick in which the revoke occurred. I think that Ton's opinion is right - which is broadly that the equity after the first revoke is the highest equity for the non-offenders between the first and any subsequent revoke. In other words, ignoring the second and subsequent revokes. How the minute should be worded is another matter ...