Revoke equity (64C)

[barmar]

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.

Except that 12B1 only applies when the Laws actually authorize a score adjustment in the first place -- it then tells him what his goal should be in the adjustment. If the Laws specify some other rectification, the director can't decide that it's not severe enough and award an adjusted score instead.

 

But the revoke law is an explicit exception to this: it first defines a normal rectification, and then says that if this isn't sufficient, he can award an adjusted score (in which case, 12B1 applies, so he tries to restore equity). But note that it does NOT say that he can award an adjusted score if it's beyond sufficient -- he can only go one way.

[RMB1]

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 think this is an unlikely reason for the origin of penalty tricks for revokes.

I suspect that even before bridge there were penalties for revokes in games like whist. The only scoring unit was tricks and I suspect the penalties for revokes were a draconian number of tricks. Following suit was one of the few rules in such games and the penalties were there to ensure they were taken seriously. The revoke penalty in bridge started off as three (more?) tricks and has reduced over time.

[gnasher]

I suspect that even before bridge there were penalties for revokes in games like whist.

Yes, it's in Hoyle:

 

https://books.google...epage&q&f=false

[Vampyr]

The only scoring unit was tricks and I suspect the penalties for revokes were a draconian number of tricks.

 

"Draconian"? This seems to suggest that the requirement to follow suit is unreasonable.

[aguahombre]

"Draconian"? This seems to suggest that the requirement to follow suit is unreasonable.

He said draconian number of tricks, not draconian rule about revoking.

[Vampyr]

He said draconian number of tricks, not draconian rule about revoking.

 

Yes.

[barmar]

Before I learned Bridge (in my mid-20's), I'd played some other trick-taking games (mostly Hearts and Spades). I can't for the life of me remember if anyone ever said what the penalty was for not following suit in those games. But I also don't remember revokes being very common. The same with most of the other common procedural errors we deal with, like leads out of turn (these are probably less common in games where the winner of the trick collects it, since someone else is unlikely to think they won the trick if they didn't scoop up the cards).

[aguahombre]

Before I learned Bridge (in my mid-20's), I'd played some other trick-taking games (mostly Hearts and Spades). I can't for the life of me remember if anyone ever said what the penalty was for not following suit in those games. But I also don't remember revokes being very common. The same with most of the other common procedural errors we deal with, like leads out of turn (these are probably less common in games where the winner of the trick collects it, since someone else is unlikely to think they won the trick if they didn't scoop up the cards).

Playing "Hearts" in my youth (not in the mid-2o's) I remember the penalty being an artificial "bitch" of 13 pts. We might have just made that penalty up, however.