BBO Discussion Forums: Renegade Rabbit - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Renegade Rabbit Claim after a non-established revoke

#21 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,056
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-November-26, 15:32

View Postpran, on 2017-November-25, 14:21, said:

We would certainly apply Law 64B4 and consider 64C1. I personally see no reason for applying Law 72 but believe that we most likely would end in Law 12C1b and have to consider the probability of declarer playing for the drop or finesse. One might argue for the application of Law 12C1c awarding a weighted score here. To this I disagree and prefer using Law 84D and rule in favour of declarer, i.e. adjust the result to 7 made.

There is a fine point here: The Director should rule so that an appeal must come from the offending side if he expects that an appeal is likely regardless of which way he rules.

In applying Law 12C1c one needs first to decide that 12C1a applies:
"When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so."

The question is under which law here is the TD empowered to adjust the score. It is a withdrawn concession, within the correction period, and the TD is only empowered to adjust the score "if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

We, and others, all think that the TD should be able to adjust, but what does Law 12b2 say?:

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

So,the Chimp would argue that it is just tough luck that the application of Law 71 does not provide adequate rectification, in that a trick could have been lost to the KH by normal (albeit inferior) play. And 84D does not apply as the Laws DO provide rectification, just inadequately.

I want to adjust, but fear that the laws say I should not. I shall ask what people think on Bridgewinners.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#22 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,460
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-November-26, 18:47

View Postlamford, on 2017-November-26, 15:32, said:

In applying Law 12C1c one needs first to decide that 12C1a applies:
"When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so."

The question is under which law here is the TD empowered to adjust the score. It is a withdrawn concession, within the correction period, and the TD is only empowered to adjust the score "if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."

We, and others, all think that the TD should be able to adjust, but what does Law 12b2 say?:

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

So,the Chimp would argue that it is just tough luck that the application of Law 71 does not provide adequate rectification, in that a trick could have been lost to the KH by normal (albeit inferior) play. And 84D does not apply as the Laws DO provide rectification, just inadequately.

I want to adjust, but fear that the laws say I should not. I shall ask what people think on Bridgewinners.

Law 64C1 not Law 71
0

#23 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,056
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-November-27, 06:13

View Postpran, on 2017-November-26, 18:47, said:

Law 64C1 not Law 71

That requires that: "the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". The "is" rather than "was" means that the test is whether this Law, if applied, would compensate the non-offenders, which it would. However, the revoke was not discovered in time, so it reverts to a withdrawn concession, which it clearly is.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#24 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,460
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-November-27, 10:08

View Postlamford, on 2017-November-27, 06:13, said:

That requires that: "the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". The "is" rather than "was" means that the test is whether this Law, if applied, would compensate the non-offenders, which it would. However, the revoke was not discovered in time, so it reverts to a withdrawn concession, which is clearly is.

How would you rule if the board was played out with declarer playing low to the trick instead of conceding right away?
Table result 7-1 properly scored, and then the revoke discovered?

The concession was the result of declarer realizing that RHO "must" win a trick. Now you have no Law 71 to consider. Explain why you think the fact that declarer effectively gave away that trick by playing low rather than just conceding justifies a different ruling.
0

#25 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,056
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-November-27, 13:25

View Postpran, on 2017-November-27, 10:08, said:

How would you rule if the board was played out with declarer playing low to the trick instead of conceding right away?
Table result 7-1 properly scored, and then the revoke discovered?

The concession was the result of declarer realizing that RHO "must" win a trick. Now you have no Law 71 to consider. Explain why you think the fact that declarer effectively gave away that trick by playing low rather than just conceding justifies a different ruling.

Because there is a different rule for when there is a revoke discovered within time and outside time, and a difference between a discovered revoke and a withdrawn concession. I am surprised that the laws are silent on a revoke discovered too late, but they seem to be.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#26 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,460
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-November-27, 16:42

The way I understand Law 64C1 is that the play shall be examined by rolling it back to the time of the revoke, and the question of damage to the non-offending side shall be determined from the likely result had the revoke not occurred.

Any activity occurring as a direct consequence of the revoke shall be ignored in this test for possible damage to the non-offending side.
0

#27 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,056
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-November-28, 06:08

View Postpran, on 2017-November-27, 16:42, said:

The way I understand Law 64C1 is that the play shall be examined by rolling it back to the time of the revoke, and the question of damage to the non-offending side shall be determined from the likely result had the revoke not occurred.

Any activity occurring as a direct consequence of the revoke shall be ignored in this test for possible damage to the non-offending side.

I agree, but the problem is that Law 64 IS more than adequate for the TD to adjust, provided he is called in time. This was a withdrawn concession, within the correction period. If it looks like a withdrawn concession, quacks like a withdrawn concession and walks like a withdrawn concession, it probably is a withdrawn concession, and Law 71 is the place to go, not 64C1. However, the law is just wrong and should be rewritten as:

<snip> if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards, or, if there was a revoke by a defender, if a player has conceded a trick that could have been won by a normal play of the remaining cards. <snip>
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#28 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,460
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-November-28, 07:22

View Postlamford, on 2017-November-28, 06:08, said:

I agree, but the problem is that Law 64 IS more than adequate for the TD to adjust, provided he is called in time. This was a withdrawn concession, within the correction period. If it looks like a withdrawn concession, quacks like a withdrawn concession and walks like a withdrawn concession, it probably is a withdrawn concession, and Law 71 is the place to go, not 64C1. However, the law is just wrong and should be rewritten as:

<snip> if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards, or, if there was a revoke by a defender, if a player has conceded a trick that could have been won by a normal play of the remaining cards. <snip>

There is no time limitation in Law 64C1

On the contrary Law 64C1 explicitly applies also to revokes not subject to trick adjustment, namely Law 64b where we find:
4. attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.
5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

So the (withdrawn) concession is just a red herring here.
0

#29 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,056
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-November-28, 08:39

View Postpran, on 2017-November-28, 07:22, said:

There is no time limitation in Law 64C1

On the contrary Law 64C1 explicitly applies also to revokes not subject to trick adjustment, namely Law 64b where we find:
4. attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.
5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

So the (withdrawn) concession is just a red herring here.

I disagree. The time limit will still surely be the correction period, which will be locally defined. At the North London Club it is within 30 minutes of the end of the session I think. Even if we decide that 64C1 applies, I don't think we adjust. That requires:
"the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". What was the damage? The revoke caused declarer to erroneously make a concession. What compensation was provided by the Law? The Law would have provided a one trick penalty, as the revoke was established when the concession was accepted. That was sufficient.

The wording implies that the compensation is not enough even if the Law was applied. That is not the case here.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#30 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,460
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-November-28, 09:36

View Postlamford, on 2017-November-28, 08:39, said:

I disagree. The time limit will still surely be the correction period, which will be locally defined. At the North London Club it is within 30 minutes of the end of the session I think. Even if we decide that 64C1 applies, I don't think we adjust. That requires:
"the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". What was the damage? The revoke caused declarer to erroneously make a concession. What compensation was provided by the Law? The Law would have provided a one trick penalty, as the revoke was established when the concession was accepted. That was sufficient.

The wording implies that the compensation is not enough even if the Law was applied. That is not the case here.


Law 79C of course applies for any kind of correction regardless of which law is involved. (This law has not so far been brought up at all during this thread as far as I can see?)

But at last I understand you to agree that the final result on the board in question shall be 7 made (and no longer 1 down as claimed by many), which means that we agree completely?
0

#31 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,056
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-November-28, 09:56

 pran, on 2017-November-28, 09:36, said:

Law 79C of course applies for any kind of correction regardless of which law is involved. (This law has not so far been brought up at all during this thread as far as I can see?)

But at last I understand you to agree that the final result on the board in question shall be 7 made (and no longer 1 down as claimed by many), which means that we agree completely?

I don't think this was an error in recording the "AGREED" score, so 79C does not apply. I don't agree with your adjustment to 7H= and think that, under the laws as they stand, it is 7H-1, as it is clearly just a withdrawn concession, and it was possible to lose a trick by normal play. If I thought that West could have been aware (say he had Kx of hearts) then I would apply 72C. I don't here, and think that this is a lacuna in the Laws. We will have to agree to differ.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users