Revoke equity (64C)

[lmilne]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq2hk754d93cj76&w=sjt854ht8dqt76c82&n=s73haj962dj84caq5&e=s96hq3dak52ckt943]399|300[/hv]

 

South declares 4♥. On a club lead, he plays the Ace and revokes, discarding a small diamond. He draws two rounds of trumps ending in dummy, plays a low club towards his Jack, East playing low (believing that declarer will ruff), scores the Jack, and proceeds to discard the ♣Queen on the third round of spades. The defense make just one trick, a diamond.

 

Law 64A2 gives the defense one trick, clearly inadequate for the damage suffered (declarer will be very stretched to make more than 10 tricks by normal play).

 

The relevant law here is 64C: "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."

 

What does equity mean here? Do we adjust the score to 4♥ making 10, the normal result without the revoke? Or do we punish declarer and assign one down, or something else?

[Vampyr]

What does equity mean here? Do we adjust the score to 4♥ making 10, the normal result without the revoke?

 

Unfortunately, yes.

[blackshoe]

If we assign down one, we don't do it to punish declarer, we do it because we believe that if he is careless he might go down one. For example low heart towards the AJ, finessing and losing to the Queen. Might he do that? Then down one. No way he'd do that? Making 4♥.

[Vampyr]

If we assign down one, we don't do it to punish declarer, we do it because we believe that if he is careless he might go down one. For example low heart towards the AJ, finessing and losing to the Queen. Might he do that?

 

Sure, why not? And it's not even careless; it is just a tiny bit anti-percentage.

 

I think the punishment deterrent effect is important, and I am unhappy that it is not part of the law. I don't at all like the offender to be in a "heads I win, tails I break even" situation.

[blackshoe]

Well, if you're in NA, applying 12C1{e} gets you to 4♥ down 1 both ways. You might do that elsewhere too, I think, but if you award a weighted score declarer will get some part of 4♥ making.

[barmar]

I think we can assume that he'll play the trump suit the same way absent the revoke. Since he played 9-never in the actual play, why would he do it differently if he hadn't revoked?

[aguahombre]

I think we can assume that he'll play the trump suit the same way absent the revoke. Since he played 9-never in the actual play, why would he do it differently if he hadn't revoked?

Yes. Declarer didn't do that, so judging that he might do that would indeed be irrational and punishment.

[blackshoe]

It would be irrational to judge that in different circumstances (ie, no revoke) a player might do something differently? I don't think so.

[lamford]

It would be irrational to judge that in different circumstances (ie, no revoke) a player might do something differently? I don't think so.

I agree with you here. The declarer elected to play two top hearts, and we cannot make him do something else. This was unconnected with the revoke. If the declarer had followed to the ace of clubs (I presume he pulled the wrong card), there is no reason to think he would have played differently in hearts. The rectification for the revoke is insufficient, but the Laws only require that equity is restored, so 4H= appears to be the only ruling.

[aguahombre]

I agree with you here. The declarer elected to play two top hearts, and we cannot make him do something else. This was unconnected with the revoke. If the declarer had followed to the ace of clubs (I presume he pulled the wrong card), there is no reason to think he would have played differently in hearts. The rectification for the revoke is insufficient, but the Laws only require that equity is restored, so 4H= appears to be the only ruling.

All true except the part about agreeing with Ed. Since his post states the opposite.

[blackshoe]

In this case it may be clear that declarer would have played on hearts whether he revoked on the club trick or not. In the general case, you may have no idea what declarer would have done. Some players plan the play, including what to do if something surprising happens. Some players plan the play and have no clue what to do when something surprising happens. Some players just take their top tricks and then wonder where the rest are coming from. There are a lot of variables in the general case. It's the general case I was talking about.

[gnasher]

What does equity mean here? Do we adjust the score to 4♥ making 10, the normal result without the revoke?

Yes, fortunately. If only we had more laws like this one.

[sanst]

I think the punishment deterrent effect is important, and I am unhappy that it is not part of the law. I don't at all like the offender to be in a "heads I win, tails I break even" situation.

The so-called laws of duplicate bridge are NOT a code of criminal law, but simply a set of rules for the game. How to play it and what to do if somebody doesn't act accordingly. The first lesson I learned when training as director was, that the players are honest and make honest mistakes. They usually don't break the rules on purpose, but simply by accident or lack of knowledge. And that's implied in the first two sentences of the introduction of the laws. That introduction also states that in the last revision there are fewer automatic penalties. Instead the concept is to rectify a situation that has unfortunately arisen.

Beyond all that is the idea that bridge is a game. It's fun to play bridge. Why bother otherwise? Nobody who does anything for fun, wants to be punished or deterred when he makes a mistake. Your attitude can only lead to a situation in which people don't want to call a director, because it is no longer a friendly game, but instead a court of criminal law. It would kill the joy for many that will go on playing bridge outside the regulated bridge world.

Only when players break the rules on purpose for gain, you should punnish them. But your basic attitude as a director should be that of a guide, helping them out of the problems that may have arisen.

[blackshoe]

Only when players break the rules on purpose for gain, you should punnish them. But your basic attitude as a director should be that of a guide, helping them out of the problems that may have arisen.

I agree with the second sentence, but not with the first.

 

There is a deterrent effect in the rectification for a revoke. That's because a revoke is considered a serious error, not just an accident. The obligation to follow suit takes precedence over all the other laws in the book (Law 44C). So if you revoke, the laws' first action is to give a trick or two to your opponent. If that's not adequate to restore equity, then the laws say "adjust the score". I think you'll agree that's fair. But if the revoke penalty goes beyond restoring equity (for example, a two trick penalty when equity would be one trick) you don't adjust the score because you want to make it clear to the revoker that he needs to be very careful not to do that. I think that's fair too.

[aguahombre]

But if the revoke penalty goes beyond restoring equity (for example, a two trick penalty when equity would be one trick) you don't adjust the score because you want to make it clear to the revoker that he needs to be very careful not to do that. the law says you don't. I think that's fair too.

As revised, your post indeed tells me why I follow the rule as director. As originally written it tell us why YOU do.

[ArtK78]

Law 64C reads as follows:

 

C. Director Responsible for Equity

 

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 know what could be clearer. It seems pretty obvious that if it were not for the revoke, the non-offending side would have taken 3 tricks. Therefore, the one-trick penalty provided by Law 64A2 does not provide the non-offending side with sufficient compensation to restore equity, and the director should award an adjusted score to restore equity.

 

The laws do not say that the offending side is supposed to get a worse result than they would otherwise have obtained without the infraction. Often that is the case, but not always. The laws protect the non-offending side against those rare situations, such as this one, where, as a direct result of the infraction, the offending side obtains a better result than it would otherwise have obtained even after the application of the penalty provided in Law 64A2.

 

The fact that East could have taken the same three tricks (plus one for the penalty) had East worked out that South had revoked at trick one is not the issue here. It is perfectly rational for East to assume that there has been no infraction, and that South was void in clubs. So allowing South to win the second round of clubs with the J that South could not hold is not something that East should be punished for. If East had somehow divined to play the ♣K on the second round of clubs, East-West would be entitled to a club trick, two diamond tricks AND a one-trick penalty for down one. The restoration of equity works only in favor of the non-offending side.

 

If it were determined that South had discarded at trick one deliberately, then South would be subject to sanction by the Conduct & Ethics Committee, not by the laws. Law 64 does not say anything about the intent of the offending party.

 

 

[axman]

Law 64C reads as follows:

 

C. Director Responsible for Equity

 

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 know what could be clearer. It seems pretty obvious that if it were not for the revoke, the non-offending side would have taken 3 tricks. Therefore, the one-trick penalty provided by Law 64A2 does not provide the non-offending side with sufficient compensation to restore equity, and the director should award an adjusted score to restore equity.

 

The laws do not say that the offending side is supposed to get a worse result than they would otherwise have obtained without the infraction. Often that is the case, but not always. The laws protect the non-offending side against those rare situations, such as this one, where, as a direct result of the infraction, the offending side obtains a better result than it would otherwise have obtained even after the application of the penalty provided in Law 64A2.

 

The fact that East could have taken the same three tricks (plus one for the penalty) had East worked out that South had revoked at trick one is not the issue here. It is perfectly rational for East to assume that there has been no infraction, and that South was void in clubs. So allowing South to win the second round of clubs with the J that South could not hold is not something that East should be punished for. If East had somehow divined to play the ♣K on the second round of clubs, East-West would be entitled to a club trick, two diamond tricks AND a one-trick penalty for down one. The restoration of equity works only in favor of the non-offending side.

 

If it were determined that South had discarded at trick one deliberately, then South would be subject to sanction by the Conduct & Ethics Committee, not by the laws. Law 64 does not say anything about the intent of the offending party.

 

 

 

When reading L64 the basis for interfering is not equity but insufficiently compensated - there is the presumption that 64A&B define sufficient compensation; if sufficient compensation is otherwise then would not A&B have been written otherwise?

 

Notably, 64C leaves to the TD to rule in accordance with what HE says insufficient compensation is. If he says they were insufficiently compensated then L12 defines what to do about it.

[Vampyr]

The restoration of equity works only in favor of the non-offending side.

 

 

Did you mean to say the offending side?

 

It would be nice if "equity" could be interpreted as the normal result without the infraction, plus the one(or two, if applicable)-trick revoke penalty. For those who object, how about if the penalty in such cases did not accrue to the NOS?

[gnasher]

It would be nice if "equity" could be interpreted as the normal result without the infraction, plus the one(or two, if applicable)-trick revoke penalty. For those who object, how about if the penalty in such cases did not accrue to the NOS?

That sounds like an attempt to preserve the inherent arbitrariness of the current rule.

 

Most penalties at bridge are given in matchpoints or IMPs, not in tricks. There is a reason for that. The value of a trick depends on the contract, the level, and the number of tricks already taken. The value of an IMP or matchpoint doesn't.

[barmar]

When reading L64 the basis for interfering is not equity but insufficiently compensated - there is the presumption that 64A&B define sufficient compensation; if sufficient compensation is otherwise then would not A&B have been written otherwise?

64A/B define the normal rectification. Then the TD is supposed to judge whether that rectification is "sufficient compensation"; if not, he assigns an adjusted score.

 

It never actually defines what "sufficient compensation" entails. Common sense and longstanding practice suggest that it means that the offending side should never gain from the infraction. This is consistent with 12B1:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.

64C is an explicit exception to 12B2, which says that the TD can't award an adjusted score because the normal rectification is unduly severe or advantageous. In this case, if it's advantageous to the OS, he shall award an adjusted score instead.

[pran]

The objective of Law 64C is to take away from the offending side any net gain they might have from a revoke after Laws 64A and 64B have been applied.

 

Nothing more and nothing less.

[sanst]

I agree with the second sentence, but not with the first.

 

There is a deterrent effect in the rectification for a revoke. That's because a revoke is considered a serious error, not just an accident. The obligation to follow suit takes precedence over all the other laws in the book (Law 44C). So if you revoke, the laws' first action is to give a trick or two to your opponent. If that's not adequate to restore equity, then the laws say "adjust the score". I think you'll agree that's fair. But if the revoke penalty goes beyond restoring equity (for example, a two trick penalty when equity would be one trick) you don't adjust the score because you want to make it clear to the revoker that he needs to be very careful not to do that. I think that's fair too.

As far as I know the revoke penalty tricks were introduced to spare the director the task of establishing the outcome of the play, with all the buts and ifs which came with it. I'm not sure when that happened but it certainly was quite some time before I learned to play bridge. I think it would be better to handle revokes as you do claims, but since revokes are far more common than disputed claims, I see the current laws as reasonable. But wether the deterrent effect is felt by the majority of the players, I rather doubt. With regard to these tricks the laws don't use the term penalty any more.

[gnasher]

With regard to these tricks the laws don't use the term penalty any more.

 

But it's still a penalty, regardless of what the WBFLC choose to call it.

[pran]

With regard to these tricks the laws don't use the term penalty any more.

But it's still a penalty, regardless of what the WBFLC choose to call it.

Regardless of what the WBFLC has chosen to call it over the time it has never been intended as a penalty!

 

It was (and is) a standard reaction to keep the non-offending side unharmed by revokes. The original reaction was a standard 3 tricks transfer, assuming that this would always be sufficient compensation regardless of the circumstances.

 

Then Culbertson (sometime in the thirties) was asked about a case when declarer in a 3NT contract had made 12 tricks by revoking while he would have been set without this irregularity. Culbertson replied that 3 tricks is the reaction, so declarer should be credited with his 3NT contract just made (after the 3 tricks transfer).

 

This obviously was an unforeseen anomality in the laws which eventually was rectified by introducing what is now Law 64C. One consequence of this change in the laws was that the standard reaction could be (and has been) reduced to a more reasonable 2 or 1 tricks transfer depending on whether the offender won the revoke trick or not.

[ArtK78]

Did you mean to say the offending side?

 

It would be nice if "equity" could be interpreted as the normal result without the infraction, plus the one(or two, if applicable)-trick revoke penalty. For those who object, how about if the penalty in such cases did not accrue to the NOS?

No, I meant what I wrote and I wrote what I meant. If the remedy provided in Law 64 was intended to be the "normal" result on the board plus one or two tricks to the non-offending side, then that is how the law would have been written. I don't know how that would be considered to be an equitable result, but that may just be me.

 

The real-world definition of the term "equity" as used in the Laws is "justice, impartiality or fairness." This is clear in context. For example, look at Law 84D:

 

D. Director's Option

 

The Director rules any doubtful point in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

 

The Laws use the concept of equity without using the term equity in Law 12:

 

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment.

 

1. The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

 

So, as explicitly stated in the Laws, the objective of a score adjustment is to put everything back to the way it should have been but for the infraction. Punshiment of the offending side is not the objective of the Laws. While not explictly stated, the theory behind this is that the infraction was not intentional, and the proper remedy for the infraction is to take away any advantage gained by the offending side inadvertently due to the infraction BUT NOTHING MORE in those cases where (1) there is no remedy provided for in the Laws; or (2) there is a remedy provided by the Laws but it is insufficent to properly compensate the innocent side.

 

On the other hand, where the laws provide for a particular remedy which results in a MORE favorable result for the innocent side, Law 12B2 explicitly prevents the director from reducing the penalty.

 

2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

Note that while Law 12B2 uses the words "to either side," it actually only applies if the innocent side obtains a benefit from the rectification provided in the Laws which is greater than would have occurred if there were no infraction. To read Law 12B2 in any other way would put be contrary to Law 12B1.