[Gerben42]

This used to be an easy case, but no longer so. I think it's instructive.

♠ are trumps and declarer has JT9854 versus A32 in dummy.

At some point, declarer leads ♠J, LHO discards so he goes up with ♠A. Later in the game, he tries to ruff a ♥ with ♠5 (safe since LHO doesn't have any trumps) and gets overruffed with the ♠6.

Assuming all non-trump tricks are won by declarer and the rest of the field makes 5♠ (losing ♠K and ♠Q only), how many tricks do you award declarer here?

A. 11, after all that's what he would have gotten anyway, now he got 10 but 1 trick penalty puts him back at 11.

B. 12, after all he would have gotten 12 because of the penalty, and now the ♠6 made a trick it would never have gotten.

In the old laws, the answer would be 12 (two-trick penalty).

[gordontd]

11 - one trick penalty. This is no worse than it would have been without the revoke, so that's what they get.

[blackshoe]

Gordon's right - Law 64A2. 64C would allow a score adjustment, but only if the NOS weren't fully compensated by the penalty (if, for example, 12 tricks were likely without the revoke).

[campboy]

Agree with Gordon.

The case you are perhaps thinking of when it would be right to consider equity including the revoke penalty is when there is a subequent revoke. So if declarer had played a second round of trumps immediately after winning the ace, and LHO had revoked a second time, we might give 12, since that is what declarer would have gotten if LHO had only revoked once.

[Gerben42]

11 is of course the right answer, but it feels unsatisfactory since on many lines, declarer would have gotten 12 but it's impossible to play for a revoke.

[richlp]

Gerben42, on Jul 31 2009, 10:40 AM, said:

11 is of course the right answer, but it feels unsatisfactory since on many lines, declarer would have gotten 12 but it's impossible to play for a revoke.

Sorry to resurect an older thread, but if there are legitimate lines to yield 12 tricks absent the revoke, why can't 12 tricks be awarded (or a weighted proportion of 11/12 tricks if that is available) based upon insufficient compensation from the revoke penalty?

[campboy]

There aren't lines for 12 tricks without the revoke. The point was that the revoke actually gave declarer a chance to make a 12th trick (11+1 for the revoke), but he didn't take it because he didn't realise there was a revoke.

[nige1]

Gerben42, on Jul 29 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

This used to be an easy case, but no longer so. I think it's instructive. ♠ are trumps and declarer has JT9854 versus A32 in dummy. At some point, declarer leads ♠J, LHO discards so he goes up with ♠A. Later in the game, he tries to ruff a ♥ with ♠5 (safe since LHO doesn't have any trumps) and gets overruffed with the ♠6.  Assuming all non-trump tricks are won by declarer and the rest of the field makes 5♠ (losing ♠K and ♠Q only), how many tricks do you award declarer here?
A. 11, after all that's what he would have gotten anyway, now he got 10 but 1 trick penalty puts him back at 11.
B. 12, after all he would have gotten 12 because of the penalty, and now the ♠6 made a trick it would never have gotten.
In the old laws, the answer would be 12 (two-trick penalty).

I think the answer may depend on whether LHO's ♠6 was a singleton. For example, if LHO has ♠KQ6 then a director might award 12 tricks to declarer, under current law.
I much prefer the ancient 2 trick law. It was simpler to understand and apply. Also it had a greater element of deterrence.

[mycroft]

I thought the old law was easier to apply, as well, until I explained the new one to a group of club TDs. I actually had to read the law book again to ensure I hadn't misspoke.

If you win the revoke trick, two tricks *
If you didn't, one trick,
... Unless you later won a trick with a card of the revoke suit, then two tricks.
If insufficient recompense, restore equity.

* - if your side took another after the revoke trick, not from failure to play a faced card, trick 12, ... Please take that as read.

The new law gets rid of the unless. It's strictly easier to rule in the large majority of cases where equity doesn't come into play.

I do note that it is more likely that equity comes into play, but less so than I imagined before the New Laws took effect. I strongly agree that the deterrent effect of the new laws is much lower, and I don't like that (I'm actually expecting to see someone try intentional revoking for disruptive purposes in safe situations. I'm not sure I'll recognize it). But "two tricks if you won, one if you didn't" (the punters can ignore the exceptions) is certainly easier to understand than "two tricks if you won, or if you won a later trick with a card you could have played on the revoke trick, one trick if all of that isn't true" (with the same exceptions).