restore equity after a revoke

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj864hk52dk4cakq4&w=st9532hqj963da6c3&n=sah84dqj983ct9875&e=skq7hat7dt752cj62&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1nppp&p=hqh4hah2s7s4s2sad3d2dkd6cac3c5c2cks3c7c6cqh3]399|300[/hv]

 

 

On the ♣Q east pitches a heart instead of playing ♣J, declarer is puzzled but then plays another club, East wins ♣J and announces a revoke. East calls director and explains what happened and he says himself that 1 trick penalty is not gonna be enoough since he prevented 2 tricks to dummy.

 

The play continues and declarer scores only 3♣, 1♦, 1♥, 1♠. What should the result of the board be? (under EBL laws if it matters)

[CamHenry]

Remembering the rules about "the most favourable result at all probable", I ask South what his plan was if E had followed suit on the clubs. If he was planning to cash out 3 more club tricks and the ♥K, that's 8 tricks to declarer; the defense have 3 remaining top tricks and it is plausible that they will keep at least one winning heart between them. There is no option even for an idiot squeeze on the run of the clubs.

 

If, however, declarer says he was planning to knock out the ♦A, that establishes three more tricks for him (as the cards lie), but it would be irrational for W not to switch to a spade at that stage. I make it 9 tricks to declarer, as EW take their cards while they're still good.

[Fluffy]

declarer was planning to play ♦Q from dummy after cashing 5 clubs.

[CamHenry]

declarer was planning to play ♦Q from dummy after cashing 5 clubs.

 

On further consideration, I rule 9 tricks N/S - it's beyond careless for W to throw the ♦A when the lead is in dummy; it's not beyond careless for E/W to cash their ♦A then two spades, before knocking out the ♥K. This is careless but not grotesque: E could well decide to cash out.

 

I would emphasise the participants' right to appeal here, as E/W could make a case that, after the ♦A and a spade from W, E will find the ♥ switch as his partner is marked with the J.

[blackshoe]

In the EBL, the TD should assign a weighted score, perhaps 30% of 8 tricks and 70% of 9 tricks to NS.

[c_corgi]

Obviously it depends on the class of defenders involved, but the location of the high cards and the winning actions look marked. From the description of his actions in the OP, East seems reasonably astute, revoke notwithstanding. 8 tricks would be the majority of my weighting unless E/W tend not to count cards.

[aguahombre]

The OP is not in England, so I don't know whether weighted scores are possible. But, if the concept of most favorable of likely results is applicable, here ---then a weighted score is not possible. A weighted score is not a possible score at all; it is a compromise. "almost most favorable?"

[RMB1]

The OP is not in England, so I don't know whether weighted scores are possible.

 

OP said "EBL laws", the EBL allows weighted scores under Law 12C1c.

 

It is quite a small list of NBOs that does not allow weighted scores, headed by ACBL.

[aguahombre]

OP said "EBL laws", the EBL allows weighted scores under Law 12C1c.

 

It is quite a small list of NBOs that does not allow weighted scores, headed by ACBL.

O.K. And is "most favorable" subject to weighting? Or does it mean most favorable?

 

Or maybe a better question: how do we "restore" equity with a score which was never possible? I don't think we could convince the NOS that their zero matchpoints for +141 against a string of +150's was equity.

Edited January 20, 2013 by aguahombre

[RMB1]

O.K. And is "most favorable" subject to weighting? Or does it mean most favorable?

"most favorable" is not in the revoke laws, it is (only) in Law 12C1e.

Law 64C says to assign an adjusted score - Law 12C says how to assign an adjusted score - including Law 12C1c for weighted scores.

 

Or maybe a better question: how do we "restore" equity with a score which was never possible? I don't think we could convince the NOS that their zero matchpoints for +141 against a string of +150's was equity.

 

"We" don't matchpoint 141 agsinst the string of 150s. We calculate the matchpoints for 120 (a small number) and then matchpoints for 150 (an average number), and weight those (a small number)x0.3 + (an average number)x0.7.

 

But if everyone is scoring 150 then our assessment of the weights of 120 and 150 might be wrong.

[Fluffy]

I made a mistake o the OP, East didn't pitch a heart, if east pitches a heart there is no route to 8 tricks, everything leads to 9 except premature cash of ♥K.

 

But I asked East today and he said he had pitched a diamond when revoking.

[c_corgi]

I made a mistake o the OP, East didn't pitch a heart, if east pitches a heart there is no route to 8 tricks, everything leads to 9 except premature cash of ♥K.

 

But I asked East today and he said he had pitched a diamond when revoking.

 

I need to think of a way to pretend that I read this before writing post #6 :P

[campboy]

O.K. And is "most favorable" subject to weighting? Or does it mean most favorable?

As Robin says, this is only in 12C1e. If an RA uses 12C1e then it does so in place of 12C1c (the weighting law). So you can't have both.

[bluejak]

What should the result of the board be? (under EBL laws if it matters)

It matters. When adjusting for a revoke you use Law 64C which leads to Law 12C, which is applied differently in the ACBL and the rest of the world. The replies which quote "the most favourable result ..." apply only in North America. Elsewhere a weighted score is the norm.