revoke on same board

[bali 2]

"When both sides have revoked on the same board, each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs."

 

Could you please xplain the process for doing so, with an example if it is possible, giving the results for each side.

 

Many thanks in advance

Al. Ohana

[axman]

"When both sides have revoked on the same board, each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs."

 

Could you please xplain the process for doing so, with an example if it is possible, giving the results for each side.

 

Many thanks in advance

Al. Ohana

Record theauction and order of play of the cards and confirm the lead to each trick [since a LOOT accepted may have occurred]. Also make note of relevant agreements, as well as rulings and their timing, especially PCs. This record is necessary since the ruling will take some time and players that want to litigate the ruling may lose track of relevant facts in the interim.

 

Provide for progress of the contest while deciding how to resolve the tricks subsequent the initial revoke.

 

I suggest starting by presuming double dummy play [subject to rulings] of the doubtful tricks** and then consider if all or part of the DD is unreasonable in light of factors such as agreements and UI.

 

Notify the players of the outcome and inform them of their right to appeal.

 

** the presumption for the doubtful tricks [those subsequent the initial revoke] is that no irregularities occur

 

I have no desire to create an example.

[bluejak]

Nor do I! But I would start by seeing where normal play takes us rather than double dummy play.

[axman]

Nor do I! But I would start by seeing where normal play takes us rather than double dummy play.

I'll point out that the end result of DD is a single destination readily achievable [and with software very quickly]. On the other hand, so-called 'normal play' heads in an incalculable number of directions with some question as to knowing when you have arrived.

[bluejak]

No, I do not agree. Many hands when you look at, if no-one does anything incredible, you can decide very quickly on a number of tricks, or two alternative numbers of tricks. Very simple. I consider DD analysis a waste of time because that is not how people play.

[Chris3875]

I didn't think there was any rectification when both sides have revoked on the same board - Law 64B7

[blackshoe]

Good point, Chris. Hm. Does this mean that proper TD procedure when there is a revoke is to not assess rectification for a first revoke until play of the hand is over, in case there is a second revoke by the other side?

 

Even when there is no rectification, though, Law 64C may be applied, and I think that's what this thread is about, although no one has said so.

 

Al, in your original post, you quoted.... something. What is your source?

[Chris3875]

In Law 64C would there be a non-offending side if both have revoked on the same board ?

[pwg]

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.

[pwg]

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.

[Chris3875]

oh yeah - I see what you mean !

 

Durn - sometimes I am so dumb I amaze even myself.

[bali 2]

Good point, Chris. Hm. Does this mean that proper TD procedure when there is a revoke is to not assess rectification for a first revoke until play of the hand is over, in case there is a second revoke by the other side?

 

Even when there is no rectification, though, Law 64C may be applied, and I think that's what this thread is about, although no one has said so.

 

Al, in your original post, you quoted.... something. What is your source?

what is your source ?

 

It is from the Minutes of a meeting in Sao Paulo this summer. :unsure:

[bali 2]

Thank you pqw, I effectively was speaking about 64 C, and your explanation is very clear : we have to calculate things after the first revoke, to calculate things after the second, and give the result obtained by substraction.

 

Sorry to ask you all questions which seem evident, but as we say in french " things which go without saying go better when said ".... :unsure:

[pran]

Thank you pqw, I effectively was speaking about 64 C, and your explanation is very clear : we have to calculate things after the first revoke, to calculate things after the second, and give the result obtained by substraction.

 

Sorry to ask you all questions which seem evident, but as we say in french " things which go without saying go better when said ".... :unsure:

At the moment I am fighting a flu and don't have the energy to look up places.

 

However, I tend to remember that when both sides have revoked on the same board (Law 64B7) the Director shall apply Law 64C and to the best of his ability establish equity as if no revoke had occurred from either side.

[blackshoe]

That may have been the correct interpretation prior to September 8th (the date of the meeting whose minute Al quoted), but it seems it is no longer so. pwg's example looks correct to me, given this minute.

[iviehoff]

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.

When you undo both revokes, in equity, you end up where you would have been without either, so it shouldn't matter whether you consider them separately or together. At the end of the day, you get back to what would have happened without either.

 

I'm not precisely sure what your recipe means, but under the more plausible interpretations it seems to double count the second revoke.

 

So when you say "if the first revoke had not occurred E/W ... would have made 3 more tricks", do you mean "the final outcome was 3 tricks fewer than what we would have expected EW to make before the first revoke"? In that case, actually, they were in line to lose 4 tricks fewer as a result of the revoke, but "rescued" one trick by revoking themselves. Now, adjusting one trick for the second revoke would be double counting it because they already got that one trick in the final outcome - the adjustment in equity is 3 tricks, not 2.

 

Or are you saying "assuming no further revoke, we would have expected them to make 3 more tricks than they were expected to prior to the first revoke, but in fact made 2 tricks fewer in the end". In that case, you have in fact calculated the correct adjustment in equity with no revokes as 3 tricks, and there is no need to adjust for the second revoke, because you already have. Again, 3 tricks is the adjustment in equity.

 

Only if you are saying "if the first revoke hadn't occurred, but assuming E/W will gain a trick by a revoke, then E/W would have made 3 more tricks than they actually did" is 2 tricks a sensible adjustment in equity. But I don't think we need to go there. By calculating an adjustment for the second revoke, you add it on and take it off again.

[bluejak]

Time to find out what this is about, I think. Please could someone quote the minute. Is it the first sentence of the OP?

[blackshoe]

Close enough.

When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity  when that revoke occurs.

 

Item 7 in the minutes of the WBFLC meeting of 8 September 2009.

[pran]

That may have been the correct interpretation prior to September 8th (the date of the meeting whose minute Al quoted), but it seems it is no longer so. pwg's example looks correct to me, given this minute.

Thanks for the reference, the minute text is: When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs.

 

First of all let me point out two facts:

1: Rectifications for established revokes are never applied until after play on the board is completed.

2: Law 64C (when it applies) instructs the Director to adjust a result as if the revoke did not occur.

 

The minute tells us that the Director shall first adjust the result as if the first revoke had not occurred. So far there is no problem.

 

The Director shall next adjust the result as if the second revoke had not occurred. But now we have a problem.

 

There is a possibility that the sum of the two adjustments (for equity) when assessed independently will be different from the resulting adjustment had we examined the first revoke and established the equitable situation at the time the second revoke occurred before examining the second revoke to decide this total adjustment.

 

This may in particular happen if the first revoke affects the continued play of the board inn such a way that the effect of the second revoke depends directly on the first revoke.

 

Most times assessing equity for a board after revokes by both sides will probably be the same when examining the two revokes independently and when examining the play as a whole. And I find it difficult to believe that WBFLC has had any intention other than to have established an equitable result as if no revoke had occurred on the board also when the second revoke is directly affected by the first.

[pwg]

I'm not precisely sure what your recipe means, but under the more plausible interpretations it seems to double count the second revoke.

 

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:

[blackshoe]

2: Law 64C (when it applies) instructs the Director to adjust a result as if the revoke did not occur.

I'm not well enough to address your whole message, Sven, but this jumped out at me. Law 64C says

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.

I don't see where in there it says "as if the revoke did not occur". No doubt there's some (long?) chain of inferences I'm not seeing. Blame the flu, if you like, but please explain it to me.

[pran]

2: Law 64C (when it applies) instructs the Director to adjust a result as if the revoke did not occur.

I'm not well enough to address your whole message, Sven, but this jumped out at me. Law 64C says

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.

I don't see where in there it says "as if the revoke did not occur". No doubt there's some (long?) chain of inferences I'm not seeing. Blame the flu, if you like, but please explain it to me.

I think it is clear enough if you do not overlook the primary condition in Law 64C: When, ..... , the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated

This can only be the case when they are worse off than if the revoke had not occurred.

[bluejak]

What non-offending side?

[blackshoe]

Both of them? :ph34r:

[duschek]

What non-offending side?

I believe that there are several uses of "non-offending" where that term should be read in the context of a specific infraction. So in this case, it means that no side should be able to gain from a revoke, and the score is adjusted otherwise. I certainly do not believe that it means that by committing an infraction, you lose protection against subsequent infractions from the opponents.