[pran]

As a general principle I cannot find it acceptable if two irregularities by the same offending side can lead to an adjusted score that is less favourable for the non-offending side than the result would be from either irregularity alone.

Whether the two irregularities are connected or separate is IMHO completely immaterial.

This implies that the result on a board where one of dummy's cards has been hidden (or missing) causing a revoke from dummy must initially be ruled upon from that irregularity alone.

An allegation that play might have been different in favour of the offending side had Dummy not violated Law 7B2 and/or Law 41D so that the card had been present and visible should not result in a possibly adjusted score less favourable to the defending side than the score caused by the revoke alone.

An argument to the opposite can best be refuted by the consequence that it will allow an offender in many situations to (deliberately) commit another irregularity and then claim an adjusted score as if no irregularity at all had occurred.

I assume that this is the basic principle behind the view expressed in WBFLC Minutes from Beijing October 10th 2008:

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.

[bluejak]

Surely the suggestion is not worse than one infraction alone. Suppose declarer led towards dummy's apparent singleton, the queen wins, and then the missing card is discovered. No revoke, but two losers in the suit. So whether what you say is true, pran, it is not relevant there.

[lamford]

pran, on Mar 13 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

I assume that this is the basic principle behind the view expressed in WBFLC Minutes from Beijing October 10th 2008:

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.

Your argument seems very reasonable; if we follow it, what was the equity after dummy hid a spade among the hearts? -100 for N/S in the ACBL, and whatever the TD decides is the corrected weighted score in 12C1c territory.

So, I agree that the player must not be allowed to gain from the revoke, but he is not doing so. The equity after the first infraction was as above, and after the second infraction is the same.

We are not asked to restore equity to the precise moment that West played the queen of spades; the Beijing minute was clear: "after the first revoke"; in this case that can only be interpreted as "after the first infraction".

[McBruce]

lamford, on Mar 12 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

My understanding of the rules in ACBL land is that the non-offenders get the best score that was at all likely. I strongly disagree that this is 4S making on this board.

I think you are right that equity is restored to the likely result without either infraction, which seems to be what bluejak is saying. And I agree that the critical guess comes when declarer leads a spade from dummy and East, who you tell me is a reasonable player, plays low.

Earlier you wrote "The vast, vaster-that-vast majority of the possible hands East can have for the opener include the ace of spades". This is vastly - vaster than vastly - off the mark. At the time of the critical guess, for it to matter, the spade honours are split, and West is known to have four spades. East needs the king of diamonds, but not the queen, to have an opening bid. The two relevant layouts, therefore, are when West has the queen of spades and queen of diamonds as here, with East having the ace of spades, or West having the ace of spades and East the queen of spades and queen of diamonds. Almost symmetrical.

If the clubs are 4-4 (and the opponents are not there to help us, so we cannot glean anything from their carding in that suit), then the latter layout is, I believe, slightly more likely. If the clubs are 3-5, the former is.

It is clear (to me) therefore that this is a very close guess (I think the right line is to cash a second heart, and then play a spade to the king if West has the second heart, but a spade to the jack if East has it), but it is quite wrong to save the declarer the guess and award him 100% of +620. It has to be 100% of -100 in ACBL land. In England, I would award 40% of a successful guess and 60% of an unsuccessful one, as I have to adjust in favour of the NOS.

This incident occurred late in an IMP League match that started at the same time that a short 21-board pairs game began. By the time the incident occurred, there was only the eight players, the husband of the opening bidder (who agreed with me that it was far more likely that a spade to the king would succeed), and me. But since then I have given the hand with the 26 declarer and dummy cards, and the opening lead, to several players. Everyone who has a close look plays a spade to the king, but most delay this decision until they discover where the club honours are; some even mention playing ace and jack of diamonds to see if East will cover (indicating probably KQ♦ I guess). If we start from the position after the clubs have been played, either by the defense or the declarer, we find this:

--E-W have 19 points
--East, who opened in first seat, has AJ♣, West has the K♣, leaving 11 unaccounted for
--East needs both diamond honours if he holds the Q♠ and not the A♠.
--Against Q♠, KQ♦, AJ♣ as East's opening bid, we have at least two possibilities where a spade to the king works: A♠, K♦, AJ♣ and A♠, Q♦, AJ♣.

So OK, I misinterpreted the position when I said that it was almost certain that East has the ace. However, that's not the question. The question is "what line will South take, knowing that East is about a 2-1 favorite to hold the ace alone over holding the queen alone?" My answer to this is "almost certainly South will lead a spade to the king."

[McBruce]

pran, on Mar 13 2010, 05:58 AM, said:

An allegation that play might have been different in favour of the offending side had Dummy not violated Law 7B2 and/or Law 41D so that the card had been present and visible should not result in a possibly adjusted score less favourable to the defending side than the score caused by the revoke alone.

I disagree here too. I think if you have related infractions: dummy hiding the card, and declarer revoking twice in dummy, the Laws say that you give the non-offenders whichever is best for them: the score obtained at the table, or the score after the TD determines what would have happened without the infraction. I think it strains the concept of equity, in multiple infractions stemming from the same irregularity, to give the non-offenders the best of three or more possible scenarios.

In this case we left normal when dummy placed only twelve cards visible on the table. It is surely not disputed that with 13 cards on the table declarer would never lead away from KJxx towards Tx in a suit where only one trick can be lost. It simply doesn't make sense to call the play declarer made (thinking dummy had a singleton) evidence toward what declarer would do seeing 13 cards. The "score caused by the revoke alone" is a 'result' that has no chance of occurring unless you ignore the first infraction. I don't believe that is equity.

[bixby]

Sorry, I was away for a couple of days.

McB., you raise a good distinction between the actual case and my hypothetical. So maybe things are not as easy as I thought.

But I am still somewhat uncomfortable with your ruling -- I just can't get away from feeling that the offending side is benefitting from its infraction.

Law 12B says that "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Applying that statement to the infraction of the revoke, it seems that damage exists and that an adjustment is therefore appropriate. It is puzzling that the offending side should be rescued from the adjustment because its infraction resulted from another infraction by the same side.

[McBruce]

I understand the discomfort, having had to deal with it from the non-offending side. (They were surprised and frustrated but did not argue as some seem to do on prinicple...)

I guess another way of stating my opinion on this is that I simply do not believe the play, including the revokes, are relevant, once it becomes clear that declarer will surely take a different line seeing all 13 cards in dummy. As soon as we discover that declarer has made a play (low from KJxx towards Tx, needing one loser) that would never be made without the original infraction, the resulting infractions (the later revokes by dummy) become part of a line that is impossible except that dummy put down 12 cards and nobody noticed. So if we apply 12B ONLY to the revoke, I think we are outside the bounds of equity, where the non-offenders get the benefit of the doubt but don't get to profit from things that will never happen in reality.

I think that we should certainly consider all possible lines from the point of the first infraction, but in this case the first infraction makes the revokes impossible! I'm still, of course, looking for a way to come up with a better score for the non-offenders, but once we eliminate the first infraction and find that declarer has a crucial choice that is about 2-1 in favour of one option, well, virtually every declarer will go the same way there. I've even considered what happens after dummy puts down 13 cards correctly and the defense decides to switch from clubs in order to give declarer fewer clues; but even in this case, it's immediately clear to any fairly good declarer that clues are needed about the outstanding high cards and there are many ways to go about getting them: playing on clubs first, ruffing some diamonds, pulling trumps to see which defender is short (and may have fewer HCP than expected). It's almost certain that declarer will make this contract except for dummy's infraction.

It's a rather strange case, not a ruling I expect to see again soon. Not often that you are unsuccessful at finding some plausible line that results in a better score for the non-offenders.

[bluejak]

Presumably I have lost something. Before the revoke occurred, declarer led towards an apparently singleton ten in dummy. Now you want to change that. How? Why? Under which Law?

[PeterE]

Bruce, I'll try it another way ... sigh

Assume first there were no revokes on this hand.
But dummy still hid a spade card under the hearts.
And declarer still played a spade from KJxx towards his "single" 10.

But this time the second spade appears before declarer is able to ruff a 2nd spade in dummy. Declarer goes one off.

According to your approach declarer now is entitled to get an adjustment from the TD in that he "certainly" would have played a spade towards his hand, if he had noticed 2 spades in dummy timely.

Of course, you - Bruce - will not adjust, will you?
So, the equity on this hand would have been one off, ok??

Now there is a revoke after declarer played towards ♠10. And this revoke does not result in rectification tricks via Law 64 A1 (because it was dummy who revoked). But this revoke damaged the NOS (because they did not get the 2nd spade trick). So, Law 64 C applies and says the TD should do restore the outcome that would have been achieved had the revoke not occured (not: had there been no irregularity at all).

Summary: Your approach is wrong in that you want to restore equity in the moment after the last irregularity.
But maybe there is no other irregularity ...
The right approach is that you have to restore equity in the moment before the (any single one) established revoke.

[McBruce]

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

Presumably I have lost something. Before the revoke occurred, declarer led towards an apparently singleton ten in dummy. Now you want to change that. How? Why? Under which Law?

The result obtained at the table is ten tricks to N-S. E-W have spotted several irregularities: Dummy not placing 13 cards on the table in full view, in accordance with Law 41D, and declarer ruffing several rounds of spades in dummy while the 4♠ was hidden.

Now, I was under the impression that the missing card appeared as declarer was leading the last trump from dummy, but I may have been mistaken. If the missing card appeared as declarer was trying to ruff the last spade, the revoke needs to be corrected and declarer loses a second spade trick, and the result at the table is nine tricks. I'll find out when I see the players involved this week.

But the issue here is how do we adjust for equity if the missing spade only appears after the revokes have been established? Clearly we need to adjust according to Law 64C, because Law 64B does not allow the defense any penalty tricks for declarer revoking in dummy. So we're back to Law 12.

This is where I take a different view from most others: I think that it gives the non-offenders too much of an advantage if we take each irregularity separately, and give them the best of three or four possible lines:

--What's the table result?
--What's the expectation if dummy tables 13 visible cards?
--What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the second round?
--What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the third round?
--What's the expectation if the missing spade is discovered when declarer tries to ruff the fourth round?

That's five ways for the non-offenders to gain based on one inadvertent mistake! I'm uncomfortable with that. I think the way to proceed is to give them the table result or equity after a 13-card dummy appears, whichever is best, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, of course.

[McBruce]

PeterE, on Mar 16 2010, 12:02 AM, said:

Bruce, I'll try it another way ... sigh

Assume first there were no revokes on this hand.
But dummy still hid a spade card under the hearts.
And declarer still played a spade from KJxx towards his "single" 10.

But this time the second spade appears before declarer is able to ruff a 2nd spade in dummy. Declarer goes one off.

According to your approach declarer now is entitled to get an adjustment from the TD in that he "certainly" would have played a spade towards his hand, if he had noticed 2 spades in dummy timely.

Not quite. In your hypothetical, the non-offending side is entitled to have the likely result had dummy tabled 13 visible cards. If for some strange reason that is two off, that's what the adjusted score is. We get a table result, then we consider the irregularities and the non-offending side gets a better score or the same score, based on what would have happened without the irregularities.

In the original case, I did not look at the situation from the point where dummy tabled only 12 visible cards with a view to adjusting in favour of the declaring side. The table result was 10 tricks; I was looking to see if the result would be different.

Law 64C only tells us to award an adjusted score; it does not say to 'restore the outcome had the revoke not occurred.' Once we're directed to Law 12, we must consider all irregularities, not just some.

[bluejak]

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make? I find this difficult to justify. No, we are not "giving the non-offenders too much of an advantage" by allowing them to keep tricks they have made.

[PeterE]

McBruce, on Mar 16 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

That's five ways for the non-offenders to gain based on one inadvertent mistake!  I'm uncomfortable with that.  I think the way to proceed is to give them the table result or equity after a 13-card dummy appears, whichever is best, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders, of course.

If you are uncomfortable with the approach of giving equity (and you have some excuse as the ACBL does not want to give equity in most cases), you should perhaps follow the line of some senior TDs here when giving you advice.

Its not always the best thing to invent new approaches and then fight to defend them ...

[McBruce]

I'm not trying to be inventive or contrary, I am trying to understand your approach. But I don't see that I am giving N-S a trick that they did not make, as David says: the table result was ten tricks.

But more importantly, I don't understand why a line that would never be considered, absent the first irregularity, should even be under consideration when we determine how to restore equity for subsequent infractions.

[Cascade]

It seems to me that:

1. The non-offenders were not damaged by the dummy being incorrectly displayed. Therefore there is no adjustment for that.

2. The non-offenders were damaged by the revoke in dummy. So we adjust for that.

3. The offenders were damaged by the dummy being incorrectly displayed. That is too bad for them we don't adjust if your sides own infraction causes damage to your side.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Mar 16 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make?

No it doesn't. The defence actually made three tricks and this is the number McBruce is giving them. The question is whether restoration of equity should be to the time after the first infraction or to the time the queen of spades was played.

McBruce argues, wrongly, in my view, that the declarer is 2-1 to get the spade finesse right. In doing this he gives East a 11 count which is not an opening bid as one of his hands. True, East may open light, but we are not told that he does.

The defence were damaged by dummy being incorrectly displayed; if it had not been, East would have won the second spade with the ace.

As RMB says, the laws are very poor at coping with multiple infractions. I can see several points of view being valid here.

[bluejak]

As a result of the cards being displayed incorrectly, declarer played a spade towards the ten. Am I correct?

As a result of playing a spade towards the ten, a defender made the ♠Q. Am I correct?

What Law allows you to give this trick back to declarer?

When the revoke occurred, equity should be restored to the point before the revoke. Do you disagree with that?

At that time declarer has already lost a trick to the ♠Q. Is that right?



What I cannot see any justification for is giving a spade trick to declarer [the offending side] that he actually lost {♠Q}.

[bluejak]

lamford, on Mar 17 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 16 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make?

No it doesn't. The defence actually made three tricks and this is the number McBruce is giving them.

Did the defence not win a trick with the ♠Q?

[lamford]

bluejak, on Mar 17 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 17 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 16 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

So your adjustment involves giving the offending side a trick it did not make?

No it doesn't. The defence actually made three tricks and this is the number McBruce is giving them.

Did the defence not win a trick with the ♠Q?

Yes, they did, and two top clubs as well. But that was all they won.

There were two infractions. One was the revoke, which cost the defence as otherwise East would have played the ace of spades if dummy had followed. The other was the wrong display of dummy. If that had been displayed correctly, the play would have been different, and the defence might well have done better than three tricks.

Neither infraction has a prescribed penalty. Both require equity to be restored. If that is to the point "after the first infraction" that is, in my opinion, +100 or a split score. If it is to the point "just before the second infraction" that is clearly +100. The Beijing minute suggests that the former is normal; some will argue it is the better of the two restorations of equity.

[bluejak]

Suppose equity is restored for infraction A, and that gives the non-offenders +100. Now suppose equity is restored for infraction B, and that gives the non-offenders -620. Does that not mean that infraction B did not damage the non-offenders? We do not adjust when there is no damage, so we adjust for infraction A only.

At the moment before the dummy was put down wrong, equity would have been +620 80% of the time, -100 20% of the time, or something.

At the moment before the revoke, equity was -100 because they now had one spade trick and were coming to another.

So adjusting for the revoke gives declarer -100. Ignore the other infraction.