Equity following revoke

[paulg]

Hi

 

I am often consulted about rulings from major Scottish events but I did not know what the ruling should be in the following case. I cannot publish the precise hand and happenings because too many people are embarrassed by their play, their failure to call the director in a timely manner, their inability to remember what was played when, and the director is not happy either with their own performance, but I think I can provide the problem I was unclear about.

 

Declarer was following the normal line for the contract and heading for down two. Late in the hand a defender revoked, not winning the revoke trick, but this caused declarer to go four down as his long suit could no longer be run. The one-trick revoke penalty would not restore equity, so the director should do so.

 

Is equity two down, as would have happened without the revoke, or one down given the normal result following a one trick revoke penalty?

 

Part of the embarrassment is that if declarer had called the director before the revoke was established, the bizarre card played as the revoke would have been a penalty card which could have led to the contract making. Declarer's initial argument to the director was that this should have been the ruling :)

 

Thanks for your assistance

 

Paul

[gordontd]

Hi

 

I am often consulted about rulings from major Scottish events but I did not know what the ruling should be in the following case. I cannot publish the precise hand and happenings because too many people are embarrassed by their play, their failure to call the director in a timely manner, their inability to remember what was played when, and the director is not happy either with their own performance, but I think I can provide the problem I was unclear about.

 

Declarer was following the normal line for the contract and heading for down two. Late in the hand a defender revoked, not winning the revoke trick, but this caused declarer to go four down as his long suit could no longer be run. The one-trick revoke penalty would not restore equity, so the director should do so.

 

Is equity two down, as would have happened without the revoke, or one down given the normal result following a one trick revoke penalty?

 

Part of the embarrassment is that if declarer had called the director before the revoke was established, the bizarre card played as the revoke would have been a penalty card which could have led to the contract making. Declarer's initial argument to the director was that this should have been the ruling :)

 

Thanks for your assistance

 

Paul

 

You seem clear that without the revoke declarer would have gone two down, so that is what it should be adjusted to. In cases when the outcome is less clear, a weighted result might be awarded.

 

I think the basis of an equity ruling must be what would have happened without the infraction, not what would have happened if the infraction had been pointed out earlier.

[Tramticket]

Part of the embarrassment is that if declarer had called the director before the revoke was established, the bizarre card played as the revoke would have been a penalty card which could have led to the contract making. Declarer's initial argument to the director was that this should have been the ruling :)

 

I agree with declarer: Law 62.B.1

 

My ruling would be director error IF called before the revoke was established.

 

Is equity two down, as would have happened without the revoke, or one down given the normal result following a one trick revoke penalty?

 

Equity is two-down.

[pran]

[...]

Part of the embarrassment is that if declarer had called the director before the revoke was established, the bizarre card played as the revoke would have been a penalty card which could have led to the contract making. Declarer's initial argument to the director was that this should have been the ruling :)

 

Thanks for your assistance

 

Paul

If declarer had called the director before the revoke was established (provided of course that he was aware of the revoke already at that time) he would be entitled to the favor from the effects of the resulting major penalty card. This favor was forfeited by not calling the director!

[sanst]

I find it the best way to resolve this by following the Laws. There was a revoke, and it became established. Law 64C1: “When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non‐offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score”. Now we turn to Law 12C1b: “The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred”. You wrote that without the revoke the result would have been-2, so that would be the AS.

[paulg]

Thanks to everyone for such clear and precise responses.

[barmar]

There's no requirement to call the director before the revoke is established. You only have to call the TD once someone calls attention to an irregularity, and players are not required to call attention to their own irregularities.

 

And in general, it's rarely to declarer's benefit to call attention to the revoke before it's established. The normal revoke penalty will give them an extra trick. And if ththat doesn't restore equity, the TD is required to adjust. So the only way calling the TD before the revoke is established can gain is if you can do better than equity+1 by taking advantage of the penalty card from the non-established revoke, and that's pretty unlikely.

[weejonnie]

There's no requirement to call the director before the revoke is established. You only have to call the TD once someone calls attention to an irregularity, and players are not required to call attention to their own irregularities.

 

And in general, it's rarely to declarer's benefit to call attention to the revoke before it's established. The normal revoke penalty will give them an extra trick. And if ththat doesn't restore equity, the TD is required to adjust. So the only way calling the TD before the revoke is established can gain is if you can do better than equity+1 by taking advantage of the penalty card from the non-established revoke, and that's pretty unlikely.

The case quoted proves to be an exception.

 

NB The requirements for correcting an unestablished revoke changed in the 2017 laws.

 

LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE - 2007 version

A. Revoke Must Be Corrected

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes

established.

 

LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE - 2017 Version

A. Revoke Must Be Corrected

A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes

established.

[pran]

I find it the best way to resolve this by following the Laws. There was a revoke, and it became established. Law 64C1: “When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non‐offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score”. Now we turn to Law 12C1b: “The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred”. You wrote that without the revoke the result would have been-2, so that would be the AS.

You proceed too fast by going directly to Law 64C1!

Before trying Law 64C the Director shall always first try Laws 64A and 64B.

[sanst]

You proceed too fast by going directly to Law 64C1!

Before trying Law 64C the Director shall always first try Laws 64A and 64B.

That doesn’t matter much, does it? There’s no automatic adjustment, but I thought that was clear from the OP. But there certainly was damage to the NOS, so it’s a 64C case. That law doesn’t carry a time limit, and therefore the TD has to adjust.

[pran]

You proceed too fast by going directly to Law 64C1!

Before trying Law 64C the Director shall always first try Laws 64A and 64B.

That doesn’t matter much, does it? There’s no automatic adjustment, but I thought that was clear from the OP. But there certainly was damage to the NOS, so it’s a 64C case. That law doesn’t carry a time limit, and therefore the TD has to adjust.

First there was a Law 64A automatic one trick adjustment and then Law 64C is tried.

 

With this in mind there should be no doubt (as indicated by OP) about what constitutes equity.

[weejonnie]

First there was a Law 64A automatic one trick adjustment and then Law 64C is tried.

 

With this in mind there should be no doubt (as indicated by OP) about what constitutes equity.

yes - 2-down.

 

Declarer goes 4-down. We give him a trick. He is now 3 down. (64A)

 

Declarer determines that this is inadequate compensation and so awards an adjusted score. (64C). You don't give an adjusted score and then add the revoke penalty.

[pran]

yes - 2-down.

 

Declarer goes 4-down. We give him a trick. He is now 3 down. (64A)

 

Declarer determines that this is inadequate compensation and so awards an adjusted score. (64C). You don't give an adjusted score and then add the revoke penalty.

Precisely.

 

I suspect that what confused OP was the fact that if the revoke had been discovered before it was established and then if the Director had been called then play would have been continued with the major penalty card, probably(?) resulting in declarer making his contract.

 

This is quite true, but is completely irrelevant as the director was not called at that time.

[lamford]

So the only way calling the TD before the revoke is established can gain is if you can do better than equity+1 by taking advantage of the penalty card from the non-established revoke, and that's pretty unlikely.

I feel sure that such a situation occurred at a North London club; I will have to consult my files.

[barmar]

The case quoted proves to be an exception.

Could declarer have figured that out at the time the revoke occurred, so he'd know that he's better off calling attention to the revoke?

[paulg]

Could declarer have figured that out at the time the revoke occurred, so he'd know that he's better off calling attention to the revoke?

Only if he'd been awake!

[billyjef]

There's no requirement to call the director before the revoke is established. You only have to call the TD once someone calls attention to an irregularity, and players are not required to call attention to their own irregularities.

 

And in general, it's rarely to declarer's benefit to call attention to the revoke before it's established. The normal revoke penalty will give them an extra trick. And if ththat doesn't restore equity, the TD is required to adjust. So the only way calling the TD before the revoke is established can gain is if you can do better than equity+1 by taking advantage of the penalty card from the non-established revoke, and that's pretty unlikely.

 

A benefit for some of us is not winning an automatic unearned extra trick. This is one reason I love online bridge, impossible for my opponents to mistakenly, or otherwise, revoke.

[barmar]

A benefit for some of us is not winning an automatic unearned extra trick.

I can't find it now, but I thought there's a Law requiring you to try to take the maximum number of tricks legally possible. This means you shouldn't refuse to take advantage of a revoke penalty because you think you didn't "earn" it.

[pran]

I can't find it now, but I thought there's a Law requiring you to try to take the maximum number of tricks legally possible. This means you shouldn't refuse to take advantage of a revoke penalty because you think you didn't "earn" it.

Law 10 C 3 ???

[blackshoe]

I can't find it now, but I thought there's a Law requiring you to try to take the maximum number of tricks legally possible. This means you shouldn't refuse to take advantage of a revoke penalty because you think you didn't "earn" it.

 

Law 10 C 3 ???

 

Law 10C3: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.

This doesn't make it a requirement, it just says it's not unethical to do it.

 

Barry may be thinking of this regulation:

 

Players are required to play each hand to win at all times. -- ACBL General Conditions of Contest, item 3 under "Play".

[billyjef]

This doesn't make it a requirement, it just says it's not unethical to do it.

 

Barry may be thinking of this regulation:

 

 

 

The history of laws making revokes illegal is somewhat interesting...originally to officially make it illegal to intentionally revoke/cheat. Then automatic reward of tricks had to be instituted (and reconfigured a few times) because some people realized that they could 'accidentally' revoke and throw a wrench into equity because it was often too hard to figure out what would happen if the revoke didn't happen...thus automatic trick rewards...this OP validates how difficult it is sometime to resolve equitably such situations even with current laws and the multiple paths created by whatifs.

 

Now I hear people telling newcomers to not draw attention to a revoke so that you can get a free trick as a reward, which IMO, is against the spirit of the laws and the revoke laws.

 

Yes there is a loophole in the law that can be legally exploited, does that mean we are required to exploit. I, personally, don't find enjoyment winning in such manner even if it is lawful.

 

What I hear some saying though, and correct me if I am wrong (as if you wouldn't ;)) is that it is illegal for me as declarer to call attention to revoke if I can know that not calling attention to it would give me an extra trick I never would have gotten otherwise, and inflating my score against the field? :rolleyes:

 

Yeah! for online bridge which resolves this messy dilemma!

[pran]

Law 10C3: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.

This doesn't make it a requirement, it just says it's not unethical to do it.

How should the Director be supposed to handle inferior play by a contestant if this were an infraction of law or of a requirement based on law?

[blackshoe]

The history of laws making revokes illegal is somewhat interesting...originally to officially make it illegal to intentionally revoke/cheat. Then automatic reward of tricks had to be instituted (and reconfigured a few times) because some people realized that they could 'accidentally' revoke and throw a wrench into equity because it was often too hard to figure out what would happen if the revoke didn't happen...thus automatic trick rewards...this OP validates how difficult it is sometime to resolve equitably such situations even with current laws and the multiple paths created by whatifs.

 

Now I hear people telling newcomers to not draw attention to a revoke so that you can get a free trick as a reward, which IMO, is against the spirit of the laws and the revoke laws.

 

Yes there is a loophole in the law that can be legally exploited, does that mean we are required to exploit. I, personally, don't find enjoyment winning in such manner even if it is lawful.

 

What I hear some saying though, and correct me if I am wrong (as if you wouldn't ;)) is that it is illegal for me as declarer to call attention to revoke if I can know that not calling attention to it would give me an extra trick I never would have gotten otherwise, and inflating my score against the field? :rolleyes:

 

Yeah! for online bridge which resolves this messy dilemma!

I haven't heard anyone telling anyone not to draw attention to a revoke.

 

You're wrong. No one is saying that. And even with the (ACBL) regulation that I mentioned, no director worth his salt is going to rule that a declarer didn't play to win by not calling attention to a revoke. Even if said declarer admits that he knew that a defender had revoked.

[billyjef]

I haven't heard anyone telling anyone not to draw attention to a revoke.

 

You're wrong. No one is saying that. And even with the (ACBL) regulation that I mentioned, no director worth his salt is going to rule that a declarer didn't play to win by not calling attention to a revoke. Even if said declarer admits that he knew that a defender had revoked.

 

 

Wrong way around, it sounded as if some were trying to imply that it was against the laws for a declarer to call attention to revoke before it was established because by calling attention to the revoke, they'd be giving up an automatic trick reward ;)

[blackshoe]

Well, it's not. :-)