Ethel Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 [hv=pc=n&s=sak84ha96daqt32c3&w=st5ht8432d97cakq5&n=sj963hq7dk6cj7642&e=sq72hkj5dj854ct98]399|300|Contract 4S by North.Lead was a club taken with the Q. AC was then led and N trumped. Now led a small diamond to the K. Played the JS (not covered) then small spade to the K. WEST showed out. North now played the QD, AS which was ruffed - revoke established. At the end of the play North was down two. The restitution made the hand down one. North claims that that penalty does not give equity. North will make the hand if there is not revoke. How do you rule?[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 The way I figure out the play it would go like this without the revoke:W N E S♣Q ♣2 ♣T ♣3♣A ♣4 ♣9 ♠4♦9 ♦K ♦4 ♦2♠5 ♠J ♠2 ♠8♠T ♠6 ♠7 ♠K♦7 ♦6 ♦5 ♦Q♥2 ♠3 ♠Q ♠A A diamond ruff and return to the ♥A now results in the loss of only three tricks Law 64C ruling: 4♠ made with 10 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanst Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Contract 4S by North ... North now played ... AS which was ruffedHow do you ruff the ace of trumps? ;) It was probably the ace of diamonds that was ruffed. Pran has already explained what would be a reasonable line of play, provided the declarer has the insight to ruff a diamond and use the last one to get rid of a loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 The way I figure out the play it would go like this without the revoke:W N E S♣Q ♣2 ♣T ♣3♣A ♣4 ♣9 ♠4♦9 ♦K ♦4 ♦2♠5 ♠J ♠2 ♠8♠T ♠6 ♠7 ♠K♦7 ♦6 ♦5 ♦Q♥2 ♠3 ♠Q ♠A A diamond ruff and return to the ♥A now results in the loss of only three tricks Law 64C ruling: 4♠ made with 10 tricks. Most favorable result is +11 tricks on finesse ♦10. Of course lack of entry might be a huge problem but seems reasonable OR split result, +10 tricks NS, - 11 tricks EW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 Most favorable result is +11 tricks on finesse ♦10. Of course lack of entry might be a huge problem but seems reasonable OR split result, +10 tricks NS, - 11 tricks EW.The Director may not consider possible alternative line(s) of play before the revoke trick when trying Law 64C. Thus a possible Diamond finesse is not relevant. Consequently the adjustment shall be 10 tricks effective for both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 "Most favorable result is +11 tricks on finesse ♦10. Of course lack of entry might be a huge problem but seems reasonable OR split result, +10 tricks NS, - 11 tricks EW". Since declarer did not choose to finesse in diamonds after the revoke, I can see no reason to think that he would do so without the revoke. I agree with Pran, 4S making 4. A split result (12C1(e)) is not legal in determining equity after a revoke, and indeed is no longer to be used in the ACBL under any circumstances. A weighted (12C1(c)) score is also not legal for a revoke ruling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 14, 2016 Report Share Posted February 14, 2016 How do you ruff the ace of trumps? ;) It was probably the ace of diamonds that was ruffed. Pran has already explained what would be a reasonable line of play, provided the declarer has the insight to ruff a diamond and use the last one to get rid of a loser.We know from the actual play how Declarer intended his play up to and including pulling the last trump from opponents. The cards left at this time makes it irrational not to ruff one Diamond for the tenth trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 How do you ruff the ace of trumps? ;) It was probably the ace of diamonds that was ruffed. Pran has already explained what would be a reasonable line of play, provided the declarer has the insight to ruff a diamond and use the last one to get rid of a loser.You don't. Based on the other thread, which specified ♦A at this trick, ♠A was a typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 A weighted (12C1(c)) score is also not legal for a revoke ruling. Why not? If the TD determines that equity (without the revoke) is 50% of n tricks and 50% of n+1 tricks and the revoke penalty only gives the non-offenders n-1 tricks, the laws allow a weighted ruling. Law 64C says to "assign an adjusted score", this allows the full scope of Law 12C1, including 12C1(c) (and until this year in the ACBL, Law 12C1(e) ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 White Book 8.64.6: Law 64C instructs the TD to assign an adjusted score when necessary to compensate the non-offending side following a revoke. Assigning an adjusted score is an application of Law 12C1 and so the TD can award a weighted score, and the TD should do so if there is uncertainty in the number of tricks without the revoke. Hm. I think I'm losing it. I would swear there was a topic (on Bridgewinners, I think) where the consensus was as chrism suggests, but I don't remember all the details, and now I can't find it. :( It dealt with Law 70 regarding "adjudicating a claim" and with Law 64C. Thing is, while Law 70 makes no reference to "score adjustment" and no reference to Law 12, Law 64C specifically instructs the director to "assign an adjusted score". This, as the White Book and Robin both point out, is a reference to Law 12, so on reflection I think I was too quick to agree with chris. I will wait to see if he can back up his assertion before I jump on the other bandwagon, though. Side note: I could merge the two topics, but I'm not sure where the individual posts would end up, so I'm leaving it alone for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Is there some posh latin phrase which means "claiming spurious legitimacy for your point of view by quoting from an official document something you yourself wrote"? Anyway, any similarities between my earlier post and the quote from the White Book in blackshoe's post are not coincidental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 "A weighted (12C1(c)) score is also not legal for a revoke ruling." This is indeed not the case. I should have said that such a score is not permitted in the ACBL under the current guidance issued to directors. This guidance is quoted in the February 2016 ACBL Bulletin (p 30, "Ruling the Game" column):...It is not used in adjudicating revokes, even ones involving the equity provision of Law 64C. When making revoke rulings, an assignment of tricks is made that applies to both sides. Probabilities are not weighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 "A weighted (12C1(c)) score is also not legal for a revoke ruling." This is indeed not the case. I should have said that such a score is not permitted in the ACBL under the current guidance issued to directors. This guidance is quoted in the February 2016 ACBL Bulletin (p 30, "Ruling the Game" column):...It is not used in adjudicating revokes, even ones involving the equity provision of Law 64C. When making revoke rulings, an assignment of tricks is made that applies to both sides. Probabilities are not weighted.No such guidance was issued to me, but then I'm a mere club director. AKA "chopped liver", I suppose. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 No such guidance was issued to me, but then I'm a mere club director. AKA "chopped liver", I suppose. :lol: I think that publication in the ACBL bulletin constituted such guidance. It is true that TDs were sent the guidance (just about word for word the same as the bulletin article) a couple of months earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Hm. I wonder how TPTB in Horn Lake reconcile this guidance with the wording of Law 64C. Absent some rationale for their position, I'm inclined to agree with the English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.