Law 64B2

[pran]

I had a curious situation yesterday: A player had ♣AKQxxx in dummy against ♣xxx in his own hand. The Clubs broke 4-0 so he needed one ruff to obtain discards for two losers.

 

Never mind the sanity of his play, he played ♣AKQx in sequence, discarding a loser[!] on the Q, ruffed the x and finally discarded his own last club and his second loser on the last two clubs from dummy.

 

Literally Law 64A specifies one trick for the first revoke and Law 64B2 specifies no trick for the second revoke. (Then of course Law 64C protects the non-offending side from any loss due to the revokes.)

 

The situation was such that the one trick rectification was sufficient, but note that if the offender in his third club trick had ruffed a small club instead of discarding on the Queen then the table result would have been the same but Law 64A1 instead of Law 64A2 would have applied on the first revoke, resulting in a two tricks rectification.

 

(That he would have had all the tricks without revoking at all is irrelevant for this thread!)

 

Comments, anyone?

[blackshoe]

Interesting situation. I think. I've been up all night, so my brain is a bit fried. B-)

[campboy]

Remember we apply 64C to each revoke separately. If he had not committed the second revoke, he would have lost a club in addition to the one trick transfer for the first revoke. Thus the second revoke damaged NOS and they should get two tricks via 64C.

If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.

[jallerton]

Yes, but the problem with WBF minutes is that they tend to be ambiguous. The meaning of this one might seem obvious to you, but some of the people responsible for writing it think it means something else!

 

Do you remember this incredible case?

[campboy]

Do you remember this incredible case?

No, I didn't remember it, despite having commented on it at the time -- thanks for the reminder. I agree with my past self that the minute would make more sense if it said "the position before the second revoke" rather than "the position after the first revoke".

 

This case is simpler than the Poznań one, though, because unless I am missing something once declarer has established the first revoke there is no way to avoid losing a club without revoking again.

 

I didn't mention it before because pran is in a different jurisdiction, but the EBU White Book contains the following comment on how to interpret the minute:

Note ‘the position after the first revoke’ means the position after the first revoke is established; and includes the one- or two-trick penalty for the first revoke.

[pran]

Has nobody noticed that the Law 64A rectification on the first revoke is one trick while the rectification on the second revoke is two tricks?

 

This means that if we (hypothetically) changes Law 64B2 slightly (to read "if it is a previous revoke in the same suit by the same player" ...) then the rectification (before applying Law 64C) is two rather than just one trick!

 

So if we want to suspect Declarer of really foul play we might say that by discarding a loser on the ♣Q instead of ruffing a low Club in the Third Club trick he actually managed to reduce the revoke rectification from two tricks to one trick! (I must add that there is no reason to suspect the player in question to be capable of such advanced thinking!)

[WellSpyder]

Has nobody noticed that the Law 64A rectification on the first revoke is one trick while the rectification on the second revoke is two tricks?

I expect everyone noticed it, but felt it wasn't very relevant since the law is clear about which revoke is subject to (non-equity) rectification.

[campboy]

So if we want to suspect Declarer of really foul play we might say that by discarding a loser on the ♣Q instead of ruffing a low Club in the Third Club trick he actually managed to reduce the revoke rectification from two tricks to one trick! (I must add that there is no reason to suspect the player in question to be capable of such advanced thinking!)

So what? The first revoke can only hurt declarer anyway; I don't think he is under any obligation to find the most costly revoke possible.

[pran]

So what? The first revoke can only hurt declarer anyway; I don't think he is under any obligation to find the most costly revoke possible.

The point is that if he is going to revoke twice, once by discarding and once by ruffing, then it pays to do the discard revoke first and the ruff revoke afterwards instead of the other way round.

 

Is this a desirable effect of the laws and the WBFLC minute quoted?

 

This effect will disappear if either equity under Law 64C shall be equity as if no revoke had been made at all, or if Law 64B2 shall be taken to mean that Law 64A1 takes precedence over Law 64A2 when both are applicable because of multiple revokes in the same suit by the same player.

 

I consider this situation so exotic that it is not worth a change of the laws, but possibly some consideration in the relevant WBFLC minute?

[lamford]

Yes, but the problem with WBF minutes is that they tend to be ambiguous. The meaning of this one might seem obvious to you, but some of the people responsible for writing it think it means something else!

 

Do you remember this incredible case?

Indeed. Known as the Riccardi Revoke Ruling, this is sometimes a topic of much mirth at TD gatherings in the bar at midnight. I would be sad if I had a blunder like this named after me - a bit like Graham "Three Yellows" Poll. In his defence there was a Simić and a Simunić on the pitch (at the start).