[lamford]

---

Matchpoints; Table Result 7♥-1, lead QS.

The Rabbit missorted his hand again as West. He had been watching Late Night Poker and noted that he had a straight flush in diamonds. He was just about alert enough to realise that this was of little value in bridge. SB, South, was playing with Molly the Mule, who always played that 4NT was Simple Blackwood, and she showed her two aces. SB thought the contract would be at least 52% and could be cold, so tried 7H. RR, West, led the queen of spades and South won and led the queen of hearts. The rabbit showed out, discarding the three of diamonds. SB conceded one off, bemoaning his bad luck. The Chimp, East, suspected what had happened, but was quick to move on to the next board. SB discovered the revoke at the end of the session, within the correction period, and suggested to OO that RR could have known that his non-established revoke would damage declarer, but OO did not think that RR could have been aware of anything. OO wondered if an adjustment should be made under 71B, but ChCh was quick to point out that declarer could have lost a trick to the king of hearts by "normal" play. A 50% line instead of a 52% line was clearly normal play.

How do you rule on this genuine case (with some embellishment)?

[Cyberyeti]

Is the contract supposed to be 7♥, I don't see how he lost another trick ?

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-November-21, 07:02, said:

Is the contract supposed to be 7♥, I don't see how he lost another trick ?

Sorry, corrected.

[RMB1]

The revoke is established, Law 63A4.
It is too late to apply Law 64A but Law 64C1 allows the TD to assign an adjusted score.

If the TD decides that declarer would always play for the drop when LHO follows small, then the adjusted score would be 100% 7♥=.

[barmar]

SB surely knows that the guideline "8 ever, 9 never" has the corollary: "10 ever, 11 never", so he would play for the drop. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone take this finesse unless there was some suggestion of unusual distribution (e.g. East has preempted, or West led a card that looked like a singleton).

But I suppose since the percentages are so close he could assign weighted scores, 50% making, 50% down 1. I think it would be clearly wrong to assign 100% down 1.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-November-21, 07:54, said:

The revoke is established, Law 63A4.
It is too late to apply Law 64A but Law 64C1 allows the TD to assign an adjusted score.

Is this the case? Law 64 WAS sufficient to compensate the declarer if he had been called in time. The purpose of 64C1, and its clear wording, is to cater for situations where a revoke gains even if the Law was applied. To adjust here, I think one has to decide that Law 71 applies and declarer would not have lost a heart by normal play. That seems "fair", but I don't think correct.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2017-November-21, 13:55, said:

The purpose of 64C1, and its clear wording, is to cater for situations where a revoke gains even if the Law was applied.

Is it? Law 64C1 starts "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, ..." so I think it applies when other laws do not apply.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-November-21, 16:58, said:

Is it? Law 64C1 starts "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, ..." so I think it applies when other laws do not apply.

You have snipped 64C1 to support your own argument. The part that you omitted, crucially, was "the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". It seems clear that Law 64 does sufficiently compensate the declarer for the damage caused, but the TD was not called as he should have been after a revoke. The declarer conceded one trick. Law 71, which I quote in full rather than selectively, is:

LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED
A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:
A. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or.
B. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

So, I submit, the TD should allow the concession of one trick to be cancelled ONLY if he deems that a trick could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. ChCh was waving his £10 appeal fee (North London club rules) under OO's nose while the latter was cogitating

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-November-21, 10:37, said:

But I suppose since the percentages are so close he could assign weighted scores, 50% making, 50% down 1.

Is it legal to have a weighted ruling on a withdrawn concession?

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-November-22, 10:22, said:

It seems clear that Law 64 does sufficiently compensate the declarer for the damage caused, but the TD was not called as he should have been after a revoke.

But whose fault was it that the director was not called immediately? Not the non-offenders', as they weren't aware there had been a revoke.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2017-November-23, 07:18, said:

But whose fault was it that the director was not called immediately? Not the non-offenders', as they weren't aware there had been a revoke.

Indeed. But Law 64C1 says the TD can adjust if "the non-offenders are insufficiently compensated by the Law", which is not the case here. They were insufficiently compensated as they were not aware of the revoke. It doesn't say "the non-offenders were damaged by a revoke that was not spotted", nor does it provide redress for a revoke that was not noticed, unless it results in a trick being conceded that could not be lost by normal play. SB missed a trick here, most unlike him. He should have played the ace of hearts and then the revoke would have been discovered whether or not East followed. RR could also have had Kx of hearts.

There are plenty of occasions when infractions, not limited to revokes but including others such as use of UI, fielded psyches etc, are only noticed at the end of the session. Usually the TD is able to adjust, but with Law 71 he only seems able to adjust when a trick is conceded that could only be lost by abnormal play.

[PeterAlan]

Law 12 seems sufficient, and avoids entering into nice semantic arguments about the wording of other Laws and their interactions one with another:

Law 12 A said:

A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score

On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86B). This includes:

1. The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.
...

Law 12 B1 said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2017-November-23, 18:09, said:

Law 12 seems sufficient, and avoids entering into nice semantic arguments about the wording of other Laws and their interactions one with another:

I, and Brian Senior when I chatted with him about the issue, both think it should not be possible to gain from an infraction. I agree with you that Law 12 should be a catchall for when an infraction gains. Another, equally valid, point of view is held by RMB1 and gordontd (and they can correct me if I am misquoting them). They think that Law 12 should only be applied if someone could have been aware that his or her infraction could gain, which is probably not the case here. In a case at Brighton, the TD ruled that it was just rub of the green when a major penalty card gained in a manner that could not have been foreseen.

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2017-November-24, 06:30, said:

I, and Brian Senior when I chatted with him about the issue, both think it should not be possible to gain from an infraction. I agree with you that Law 12 should be a catchall for when an infraction gains. Another, equally valid, point of view is held by RMB1 and gordontd (and they can correct me if I am misquoting them). They think that Law 12 should only be applied if someone could have been aware that his or her infraction could gain, which is probably not the case here. In a case at Brighton, the TD ruled that it was just rub of the green when a major penalty card gained in a manner that could not have been foreseen.

White Book 2017 8.12.1 Score adjustments said:

A score is adjusted if an infraction damages the non-offenders. A TD or Appeals Committee will give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side and will adjust the score in its favour if they feel it has gone wrong as a result of pressures created by an infraction.
...

subject only to the caveat

White Book 2017 8.12.1 Score adjustments said:

...
In adjusting the score, however, they will not take into account any subsequent damage which they do not believe to have been caused by the original irregularity.

which does not appear to be in point here.

[weejonnie]

Can we just rule under Law 72C? Do we discriminate between the Rabbit's Guardian Angel and the Chimp?

If we rule under 72C (or 12) presumably we can award a weighted score (60-40) or whatever.

Mind you, I am amazed SB didn't ask to see the Rabbit's hand knowing what he does about him.

Then there is law 84, which looks the best option.

D. Director’s Option
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-
offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement
it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by
an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2017-November-24, 08:38, said:

Quote

White Book 2017 8.12.1 Score adjustments said:
A score is adjusted if an infraction damages the non-offenders. A TD or Appeals Committee will give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side and will adjust the score in its favour if they feel it has gone wrong as a result of pressures created by an infraction.

I think the first sentence of that is a general statement, rather than a statement that any infraction which damages the non-offenders should get a score adjustment. Perhaps someone from the EBU can clarify how an infraction which damages the non-offenders but which could not have been foreseen is currently treated, especially one for which there is a specified but inadequate rectification. We are still waiting for clarification from the EBU or WBFLC as to what "specifies" means (in Law 27 inter alia), so I would not hold your breath for a reply.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2017-November-24, 14:17, said:

I think the first sentence of that is a general statement, rather than a statement that any infraction which damages the non-offenders should get a score adjustment. Perhaps someone from the EBU can clarify how an infraction which damages the non-offenders but which could not have been foreseen is currently treated, especially one for which there is a specified but inadequate rectification. We are still waiting for clarification from the EBU or WBFLC as to what "specifies" means (in Law 27 inter alia), so I would not hold your breath for a reply.

May I quote the Introduction to the laws: "The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary containing examples to help in this respect". We're still waiting for this, too.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-November-24, 14:17, said:

I think the first sentence of that is a general statement, rather than a statement that any infraction which damages the non-offenders should get a score adjustment. Perhaps someone from the EBU can clarify how an infraction which damages the non-offenders but which could not have been foreseen is currently treated, especially one for which there is a specified but inadequate rectification. We are still waiting for clarification from the EBU or WBFLC as to what "specifies" means (in Law 27 inter alia), so I would not hold your breath for a reply.

There is a long way from WBFLC and EBU to the Norwegian Law committee, but after some talks with them I consider their translation most appropriate:
They consistently distinguish between "name" and "specify" in such a way that for instance the bid 2♦ as transfer to hearts names Diamonds and specifies Hearts.

Accordingly the definitions in the laws should define a bid as "an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a named denomination".

Until (in case) WBFLC or EBU comes up with a different interpretation this is apparently how we shall understand the relevant laws here.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-November-25, 04:19, said:

There is a long way from WBFLC and EBU to the Norwegian Law committee, but after some talks with them I consider their translation most appropriate:
They consistently distinguish between "name" and "specify" in such a way that for instance the bid 2♦ as transfer to hearts names Diamonds and specifies Hearts.

Accordingly the definitions in the laws should define a bid as "an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a named denomination".

Until (in case) WBFLC or EBU comes up with a different interpretation this is apparently how we shall understand the relevant laws here.

Does the Norwegian translation throw any light on how it would handle this case, where people have tried to rule under Law 64C, Law 12, Law 72C and Law 84? I personally think Law 12 should apply, but that does not appear to be mainstream opinion where a set procedure provides (insufficient) redress, in this case Law 71B. I think there should be provision for an adjustment when a revoke is discovered too late.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-November-25, 11:04, said:

Does the Norwegian translation throw any light on how it would handle this case, where people have tried to rule under Law 64C, Law 12, Law 72C and Law 84? I personally think Law 12 should apply, but that does not appear to be mainstream opinion where a set procedure provides (insufficient) redress, in this case Law 71B. I think there should be provision for an adjustment when a revoke is discovered too late.

We would certainly apply Law 64B4 and consider 64C1. I personally see no reason for applying Law 72 but believe that we most likely would end in Law 12C1b and have to consider the probability of declarer playing for the drop or finesse. One might argue for the application of Law 12C1c awarding a weighted score here. To this I disagree and prefer using Law 84D and rule in favour of declarer, i.e. adjust the result to 7♥ made.

There is a fine point here: The Director should rule so that an appeal must come from the offending side if he expects that an appeal is likely regardless of which way he rules.