Revokes and claims

[axman]

Not so. 64C2(a) says that the adjusted score is determined on the basis that the second revoke does not take place, which means that E plays ♣Q under W's ♣A at trick 3. The rest then follows.

 

There is no parsing of 64C2a that says If X occurs then adj score = F(X). What it does say is If X then 12C1b.

[PeterAlan]

There is no parsing of 64C2a that says If X occurs then adj score = F(X). What it does say is If X then 12C1b.

If you're going to be that pedantic, yes. But, to use your notation, 12C1(b) then says adjusted score = F(x).

 

Law 12C1(b) says "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."

 

Since Law 64C2(a) says "After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred" then "the infraction" for which we are adjusting is the subsequent (here second) revoke, and the effect is that 12C1(b) means in this case that we are to assign "the probable outcome of the board had the" second revoke "not occurred". You're drawing a distinction without a difference.