pwg

So, an adjusted score may be appropriate. So the psych of 1NT is legal unless . . . Peter.

Law 16 includes the word *demonstrably* as in: "partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". In normal parlance that implies at least a fairly high degree of certainty, not just a possibility. How then should we interpret "demonstrably" in this context? If the extraneous information is that the doubler is not sure that this is the best call, how do we demonstrate that this suggests one LA over another?

Where is the advantage to E/W? It seems to me (in my innocence) that the damage to N/S was from the double, not from the bid of 4C which actually places E/W in a worse contract.

You are correct, I put it badly. I had intended to imply that, after applying equity to both revokes, you returned to where the hand would have been with neither. This seems to make it unnecessary to look at the revokes separately - however: if one of the revokes resulted in damage to the offending side, equity would not be restored in that case. :unsure:

Sorry, overlapping replies - in my constructed example, E/W were non-offenders on the first revoke, and N/S were non-offenders on the second revoke. I'd also like to know the source of the OP's quote.

Chris, I assume this is a 64C case - something like: Both sides revoked, so no rectification. - First revoke by N/S was on trick 2 - if it had not occurred, E/W (at that stage, following normal play) would have made 3 more tricks, so for equity, 3 tricks are transferred to E/W. - Second revoke by E/W on trick 5 - if it had not occurred, N/S (at that stage) would have made 1 more trick, so 1 trick is transferred back to N/S. - so, to restore equity, 2 tricks are transferred to E/W as the end result. (BTW, I think the use of the word "rectification" is poor in this context, as it seems to imply restoring equity - I think the old terminology of "penalty" would be clearer ) :unsure: pwg.