[One Short]

The Director calls for the end of the round and goes to collect the boards from the table next to his.
He is told that there was a revoke on the first of the three boards which one of the non-offending players would like to be investigated.
Not wanting to delay the play in the room and because he was about to play the revoke board and because he was hazy about time limits on such an issue, the Director said he would investigate at the end of play.
It was ascertained that bidding had started on the second board when a non-offending player mentioned that Declarer had revoked on the previous board and as a consequence Declarer should not have made the contract.
Do the Laws allow the Director to make an assign an adjusted score in these circumstances?
If the Director decides at the end of play that he cannot deal with the matter adequately (eg offending parties having gone home) and allows the score to stand, has the non-offender a right of appeal?

[barmar]

Law 64B4:

Quote

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:
...
if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.

You say that attention was drawn to the revoke after bidding had started on the next deal, but you didn't say which players had bid. If it was only one player, and he was from the offending side, it's still possible to rectify.

[pran]

 One Short, on 2012-July-16, 17:24, said:

The Director calls for the end of the round and goes to collect the boards from the table next to his.
He is told that there was a revoke on the first of the three boards which one of the non-offending players would like to be investigated.
Not wanting to delay the play in the room and because he was about to play the revoke board and because he was hazy about time limits on such an issue, the Director said he would investigate at the end of play.
It was ascertained that bidding had started on the second board when a non-offending player mentioned that Declarer had revoked on the previous board and as a consequence Declarer should not have made the contract.
Do the Laws allow the Director to make an assign an adjusted score in these circumstances?
If the Director decides at the end of play that he cannot deal with the matter adequately (eg offending parties having gone home) and allows the score to stand, has the non-offender a right of appeal?

Law 64B4 said:

[There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:]
if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.

but

Law 64C said:

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

so yes, the Laws not only allow, but instruct the Director to assign an adjusted score in these circumstances if NOS was actually damaged by the revoke. The Director has not done his duty and non-offending side certainly has a case for an appeal.

[fito]

 pran, on 2012-July-16, 23:10, said:

but

so yes, the Laws not only allow, but instruct the Director to assign an adjusted score in these circumstances if NOS was actually damaged by the revoke. The Director has not done his duty and non-offending side certainly has a case for an appeal.

full agree with you, note than the correction of this revoke is not by L64A, but L64C (equity), so you do not change the trick from one side to the other, but adjusting the score.

[axman]

 pran, on 2012-July-16, 23:10, said:

but

so yes, the Laws not only allow, but instruct the Director to assign an adjusted score in these circumstances if NOS was actually damaged by the revoke. The Director has not done his duty and non-offending side certainly has a case for an appeal.

The premise of an adjusted score operates upon "the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law". Which notably does not rely upon "if NOS was actually damaged by the revoke".

To wit, the law places no** boundaries as to what constitutes "insufficiently compensated".

So, to attempt to describe boundaries- say a pair [in fact] was not damaged, where the TD deems*** that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law- then this law provides an adjusted score. Also, say a pair [in fact] was damaged, where the TD deems*** that the non-offending side is sufficiently compensated by this Law- then this law does noy provide an adjusted score.

** Actually, the law provides some boundaries, but as they are not complete boundaries [there being a gaping hole] in the strictest sense they are not boundaries

*** It is notable [in the strictest sense] that such deeming need not be grounded in fact [as the example illustrates]

[mycroft]

The difference here is:

Until L64B4 is in play, we can pass over penalty tricks (one or two). We also After doing that, we ensure equity to without the revoke.

After L64B4 is in play, we only ensure equity to without the revoke. So if the revoke, say, stopped them from running a suit, and they would have made another trick or three with proper play, then they get that, even after the round or later. If there was no advantage from the revoke, though, that's it; they've given up their rights to the penalty.

Read L64C again - it doesn't trigger the "insufficiently compensated" rule, because the Law requires an adjusted assigned score based on the non-offenders not being damaged by the illegal play. The Director can't give them the contract, however, because "if they'd called in time, they'd have got a penalty trick".

I think we are all agreeing violently. To answer the OPs questions:
- If it can be established that there was a revoke, a score must be assigned (even if it's the table score as there was no damage).
- It's the TDs job to ensure that a call is handled, and if he failed to for reasons that are no fault of the players, it's Director Error.
- Certainly this (non-)ruling can be appealed; but in this case, it's likely that the appeals process is as informal as the TD process, so...

[barmar]

There must be a time limit after which the score cannot be changed. Is this the Correction Period?

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-July-17, 21:33, said:

There must be a time limit after which the score cannot be changed. Is this the Correction Period?

Generally, yes. Laws 79C and 81C3.