Renegade Rabbit

[pran]

The way I understand Law 64C1 is that the play shall be examined by rolling it back to the time of the revoke, and the question of damage to the non-offending side shall be determined from the likely result had the revoke not occurred.

 

Any activity occurring as a direct consequence of the revoke shall be ignored in this test for possible damage to the non-offending side.

[lamford]

The way I understand Law 64C1 is that the play shall be examined by rolling it back to the time of the revoke, and the question of damage to the non-offending side shall be determined from the likely result had the revoke not occurred.

 

Any activity occurring as a direct consequence of the revoke shall be ignored in this test for possible damage to the non-offending side.

I agree, but the problem is that Law 64 IS more than adequate for the TD to adjust, provided he is called in time. This was a withdrawn concession, within the correction period. If it looks like a withdrawn concession, quacks like a withdrawn concession and walks like a withdrawn concession, it probably is a withdrawn concession, and Law 71 is the place to go, not 64C1. However, the law is just wrong and should be rewritten as:

 

<snip> if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards, or, if there was a revoke by a defender, if a player has conceded a trick that could have been won by a normal play of the remaining cards. <snip>

[pran]

I agree, but the problem is that Law 64 IS more than adequate for the TD to adjust, provided he is called in time. This was a withdrawn concession, within the correction period. If it looks like a withdrawn concession, quacks like a withdrawn concession and walks like a withdrawn concession, it probably is a withdrawn concession, and Law 71 is the place to go, not 64C1. However, the law is just wrong and should be rewritten as:

 

<snip> if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards, or, if there was a revoke by a defender, if a player has conceded a trick that could have been won by a normal play of the remaining cards. <snip>

There is no time limitation in Law 64C1

 

On the contrary Law 64C1 explicitly applies also to revokes not subject to trick adjustment, namely Law 64b where we find:

4. attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.

5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

 

So the (withdrawn) concession is just a red herring here.

[lamford]

There is no time limitation in Law 64C1

 

On the contrary Law 64C1 explicitly applies also to revokes not subject to trick adjustment, namely Law 64b where we find:

4. attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.

5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

 

So the (withdrawn) concession is just a red herring here.

I disagree. The time limit will still surely be the correction period, which will be locally defined. At the North London Club it is within 30 minutes of the end of the session I think. Even if we decide that 64C1 applies, I don't think we adjust. That requires:

"the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". What was the damage? The revoke caused declarer to erroneously make a concession. What compensation was provided by the Law? The Law would have provided a one trick penalty, as the revoke was established when the concession was accepted. That was sufficient.

 

The wording implies that the compensation is not enough even if the Law was applied. That is not the case here.

[pran]

I disagree. The time limit will still surely be the correction period, which will be locally defined. At the North London Club it is within 30 minutes of the end of the session I think. Even if we decide that 64C1 applies, I don't think we adjust. That requires:

"the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". What was the damage? The revoke caused declarer to erroneously make a concession. What compensation was provided by the Law? The Law would have provided a one trick penalty, as the revoke was established when the concession was accepted. That was sufficient.

 

The wording implies that the compensation is not enough even if the Law was applied. That is not the case here.

 

Law 79C of course applies for any kind of correction regardless of which law is involved. (This law has not so far been brought up at all during this thread as far as I can see?)

 

But at last I understand you to agree that the final result on the board in question shall be 7♥ made (and no longer 1 down as claimed by many), which means that we agree completely?

[lamford]

Law 79C of course applies for any kind of correction regardless of which law is involved. (This law has not so far been brought up at all during this thread as far as I can see?)

 

But at last I understand you to agree that the final result on the board in question shall be 7♥ made (and no longer 1 down as claimed by many), which means that we agree completely?

I don't think this was an error in recording the "AGREED" score, so 79C does not apply. I don't agree with your adjustment to 7H= and think that, under the laws as they stand, it is 7H-1, as it is clearly just a withdrawn concession, and it was possible to lose a trick by normal play. If I thought that West could have been aware (say he had Kx of hearts) then I would apply 72C. I don't here, and think that this is a lacuna in the Laws. We will have to agree to differ.