[shevek]

Hearts are trumps.
A Diamond is led, declarer has one.
Declarer pitches a spade on the first diamond then trumps the next one. Plays on ...

1 or 2?

[blackshoe]

One [Law 64A2], but the TD will have to consider whether to adjust the score under Law 64C, because of

Quote

Law 64B2: There is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke: 2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply.

[iviehoff]

You sweep the tricky point under the carpet with that entirely accurate answer, Ed.

If just the first revoke happened, but not the second one, then the defence would have the right to one trick transferred. This may actually be better than equity if neither revoke occurred. The second revoke may then damage the defence. The question is, are they due only the equity before both revokes occurred, or are they due what they would have got if only the first revoke had occurred, if that is better? I think they are. In other words, equity is the best of (1) the equity if neither revoke occurred and (2) what the defence would likely have got, including the transferred trick, if just the first revoke occurred.

If this were not the case, one could potentially make a profit from a subsequent revoke in the same suit.

[blackshoe]

Equity means, to me, the result expected just before the relevant infraction occurred. In this case, that's the second infraction, so equity includes the one trick transferred for the first revoke. Doesn't seem all that tricky to me.

[mycroft]

That is an interesting answer, Ed, because I believe it's right in some jurisdictions, but I also believe the argument in England (and potentially other places) would be "two for the last revoke, none additional for the first" on the following grounds:

The first revoke if it happened alone, would be one trick, and the second revoke in the same suit is no additional tricks. The second revoke, however, is two tricks no matter what happened before. Which is most advantageous for the non-offenders? Two tricks.

It's a bit disturbing that I know the answer in a jurisdiction I don't direct, when I'm not 100% sure about the jurisdiction I do direct in. Ah well, time to ask more questions.

[jeremy69]

Can someone help me with why the application of the law should change according to the jurisdiction one is in. I know there are options where a zone can decide for itself "Having no hearts , partner" for example but is this one?

[RMB1]

jeremy69, on 2010-December-08, 12:46, said:

Can someone help me with why the application of the law should change according to the jurisdiction one is in.

It a matter of interpretation.

In some juristrictions there is some statement on how to deal with the equity from the second revoke. This statement is either training course material, or statement of the appropriate regulatory authority committee, or case law.

In the EBL and EBU there is training course material that says that "Law 64C" equity when applied to the second revoke, applies to the position after the first revoke: what would be the equitable outcome if the player revoked once but not again, including in the outcome the penalty tricks for the (first) revoke.

In other justistictions there is no statement, and equity is a assumed to be the outcome if the player had not revoked at all.

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on 2010-December-08, 12:46, said:

Can someone help me with why the application of the law should change according to the jurisdiction one is in. I know there are options where a zone can decide for itself "Having no hearts , partner" for example but is this one?

It would be nice to think that we are all playing the same game, so I don't think that the application of the law should change according to the jurisdiction one is in. However, as Robin says, different authorities sometimes have different ideas on what the Laws actually say; this can lead to different "interpretations".

For example, it is 100% clear to me (and, I believe, to the English Bridge Union also) that Laws 16, 73 & 12 do not permit Reveley rulings. However, I understand that during each of the last two World Championships, the WBF Appeals Committee amended a TD's sensible ruling arising from the alleged use of UI to a weighting including a percentage of the table result. It would therefore seem that the WBF Appeals Committee has a different "interpretation" of these Laws.

[mycroft]

Not knowing the appeals in question, I don't know if (i.e. I highly doubt that) this is happening, but it *is* possible to include the contract reached at the table and the result reached at the table in a weighted ruling, without it being Reveley, *if* there's another way to get there.

It's really hard to explain to the punters (remember, I'm in a no weighted rulings region) that we're not letting the result stand, we're assigning the same contract making the same number of tricks; I've been involved in several rulings of that nature, and only once did I bother to try anything past "all roads lead to Rome".

I know Jeffrey and Jeremy know that, but it is important to point out.

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2010-December-08, 17:19, said:

For example, it is 100% clear to me (and, I believe, to the English Bridge Union also) that Laws 16, 73 & 12 do not permit Reveley rulings. However, I understand that during each of the last two World Championships, the WBF Appeals Committee amended a TD's sensible ruling arising from the alleged use of UI to a weighting including a percentage of the table result. It would therefore seem that the WBF Appeals Committee has a different "interpretation" of these Laws.

The WBF LC interpretation on Reveley rulings is far less dogmatic than the EBU interpretation.

WBF Laws Commission, Philadelphia, 12 October 2010 said:

8. A so-called ‘Reveley’ score adjustment is one in which for equity a weighted score [see Law 12C1©] includes a percentage of results obtained via use of the call that was actually made at the table. There are anxieties that such adjustments may encourage players to infract the law by allowing them some proportion of their infractive result. For this reason such adjustments should in general be avoided.

Compared with

EBU White Book 2010 said:

16.3 Weighting when a call (or play) is disallowed
If a call (or play) is disallowed because the TD judges that an illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was present then this call or play may not be used in any calculations of weighting. Note that it is possible for the result to be included when it might have been reached in another way.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2010-December-08, 15:00, said:

In other justistictions there is no statement, and equity is a assumed to be the outcome if the player had not revoked at all.

Is it? Is that the ACBL position? I don't think so, though I could be wrong.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-09, 01:00, said:

Is it? Is that the ACBL position? I don't think so, though I could be wrong.

No idea. Its mycroft who thinks the ruling may differ in different juristictions, and he admits he does not know his local juristriction's ruling.

[jeremy69]

I believe the WBF Laws Commission met in Philadelphia and there was much discussion on if and whether Reveley rulings could be made and there was certainly not unanamity. Perhaps this was to try to address the different interpretations.
I've sat on an appeal at an English congress which included, as an appeal member, a senior (now departed from us) European official who was visiting. He insisted the score could be split in such a position. I insisted it could not and I think we ended up wading through the white book. He branded the EBU position ridiculous and me arrogant for daring to contradict him, a person of great knowledge and experience so we ended up writing up his dissenting opinion.

[iviehoff]

mycroft, on 2010-December-08, 12:11, said:

That is an interesting answer, Ed, because I believe it's right in some jurisdictions, but I also believe the argument in England (and potentially other places) would be "two for the last revoke, none additional for the first" on the following grounds:

The first revoke if it happened alone, would be one trick, and the second revoke in the same suit is no additional tricks. The second revoke, however, is two tricks no matter what happened before. Which is most advantageous for the non-offenders? Two tricks.

I think you have misunderstood what it says in the EBU White Book. We read (discussing a specific example):

"If East had not revoked a second time, declarer would have made 4 spade tricks and an extra trick as rectification for the revoke. Due to the second revoke he only makes three spade tricks. Applying Law 64C, the TD adjusts the score by giving him the tricks he would have received with only one revoke made (4 plus 1)."

This is not an automatic two trick penalty for the second revoke, it is returning the situation to what it would have been if only the first revoke had occurred, including its 64A rectification.

Moreover, I don't think this interpretation could apply anywhere, as it is plainly inconsistent with the law. 64B2 quite clearly says there is no 64A rectification for a subsequent revoke in the same suit. So the Director has no discretion to ignore the first revoke and rectify the second revoke by 64A, if more beneficial to the non-offenders.

To me the situation is as obvious and cut and dried as Ed says it is. But unfortunately to others it isn't.

[jallerton]

The example you cite from the EBU White Book is not an EBU example. The section is headed "[Ton]" which means that it was written by Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBF Laws Commission [though it is made clear elsewhere that these are the personal views of Mr Kooijman, not necessarily also those of the WBFLC itself.]

However, it is possible that someone had pointed out to the WBFLC the potential for different interpretations of Law 64C, as it has issued a statement on this matter.

Quote

[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.