new revokes...

[axman]

 

Many people seem to forget that bridge is a game for gentlemen and ladies where the prime concern is to obtain a "fair" result, i.e. to rectify rather than penalize every irregularity.

An extremely misguided notion.

 

Much closer to the mark is that bridge is a game where the prime concern is obtaining results by fair play.

[bluejak]

While David's post may be erudite, and seems pretty reasonable to me, there is one exception: while saying that most revokes do not restore equity, he then ignores this in the rest of his post, and provides no evidence his assertion is true. Of course, the reason is that it is not true: as he knows very well, once the revoke penalty has been applied, very few revokes need a Law 64C adjustment because equity has been satisfied. Certainly it may have been satisfied with an additional penalty element, but that's irrelevant: equity has been satisfied.

[campboy]

I think the two of you are just meaning different things: one of you talking about the likelihood of the penalty giving NOS at least equity; the other talking about the likelihood of it giving exactly equity.

 

Anyway, I am fed up of explaining to people that they do not automatically get a windfall when an opponent revokes, so I think it gives exactly equity quite a lot of the time. I am also fed up of spending 5 minutes analysing a hand to see if I need to make a 64C adjustment, only to find out that I don't, so I would rather it didn't. Under the old rules it was often easier to check that no additional damage had been done.

 

[i am talking here as a playing TD when there is time pressure on every ruling; of course when I am non-playing I am quite happy to have a hand to analyse even if the answer turns out not to be interesting.]

[Fluffy]

the randomness of the penalty is what puzzles me, also I am afraid of cheaters revoking against bad players who won't review deals when they are not making any more tricks unless revoking, it seems to be a free shot under current laws.

[dburn]

While David's post may be erudite, and seems pretty reasonable to me, there is one exception: while saying that most revokes do not restore equity, he then ignores this in the rest of his post, and provides no evidence his assertion is true.  Of course, the reason is that it is not true: as he knows very well, once the revoke penalty has been applied, very few revokes need a Law 64C adjustment because equity has been satisfied.  Certainly it may have been satisfied with an additional penalty element, but that's irrelevant: equity has been satisfied.

Martian: "What is equity?"

 

Earthman: "Equity is satisfied when a thief, on being immediately apprehended for the crime of stealing a dollar, is compelled to give his victim two dollars."

 

Martian: "I see. Tell me - if the thief steals three dollars, must he give four dollars to his victim, or six?"

 

Earthman: "No, no - only three, for equity is thereby also satisfied."

 

Martian (into communicator): "Prepare to return to base - our journey has been wasted. There is no intelligent life here."

[iviehoff]

I think it is safe to say that the actual aim of the present laws is to have an automatic "rectification" that is the smallest consistent with ensuring L64 adjustments are infrequent. More controversially, one could characterise that as more being about minimising the work of TDs than any careful consideration of punishment or equity.

[mycroft]

I wish to reiterate Campboy's comment: DBurn is saying that the revoke laws rarely restore exact equity (which I disagree with; with the new change in my experience it's more like half the time, and I have Campboy's issue with that as well as "you know, I kind of liked the penalty the way it was before; people revoke less when it costs more"); Bluejak (using screen names to avoid confusion) is saying that the revoke laws rarely do not return at least equity (which is probably true, but less so than before, and that's annoying, too; more time-consuming investigations are required, most of which don't change anything).

 

So, both right. The argument over whether revoke rectifications should be penalty-oriented, equity-oriented, or ease-of-application-oriented is interesting, but for another forum I guess.

 

Well, almost both right. The first sentence of the Earthman is able to confuse: "A thief, on being immediately apprehended for the crime of stealing a dollar, is compelled to give his victim two dollars. Equity is satisfied, and more, of course." The Martian's later question (which will come) of why $1 gets punished, but $3 does not have an additional punishment, is again, legitimate, but not for here.

 

I leave you with a question that was asked in another place a couple of years ago: You hold ♦AKQJxxx on lead to 3NT. You lead the ♦K, and partner shows out. What do you do now?

 

Cash the DA immediately; *before* partner can find her diamond.