Re: equity

Le 01/02/2019 =E0 22:41, Roger Pewick a =E9crit=A0:
>
> After an event a player asserts he revoked on a board (and no ruling =

> was made).=A0 While his opponent did not confirm, he did not dispute the =

> assertion.=A0 These circumstances are addressed by L64C; critical issues =

> are the occurrence of an established revoke, and deeming by the TD =

> insufficient compensation.
>
> Firstly, if an established revoke occurred it must be dealt with by =

> the TD if attention is drawn to it- When, after any established =

> revoke,=85=A0 (L64C1) There is no time limit constraining the application =

> of L64.
>
> .=A0 However, if an assertion of a revoke was made that did not in fact =

> occur it would be wrong for the TD to act as if it had occurred.
>
> One reason being that an improper ruse can wrongfully alter scores and =

> affect the proper ranking.=A0 This can occur either by intention or by =

> mistaken memory- so called 'unintentional'.
>
> Thus, a prudent TD will desire high confidence that L64C applies =

> before making it function.=A0 And, what evidence does the TD have that =

> such a revoke occurred.=A0 There is an assertion by the putative =

> offender and a lack of confirmation (but not disputed) by the =

> opponent; there is an assertion of the order of some of the cards.=A0 On =

> the other side, the cards have been mixed; there is no assertion as to =

> remaining cards.=A0 What would give the TD the confidence that he was =

> not violating the law by making a L64C ruling?=A0 It is not fool-proof, =

> but without hand records if each side wrote the sequence of play, or =

> the remaining cards at the revoke, under the pain of=A0 1 board PP to =

> both sides if there was any discrepancy=85 you see, players willing to =

> take that kind of hit if their opponent missed a spot would give me =

> pretty high confidence that it is the real deal.
>
> There is a reason that L65D says 'A player who fails to comply with =

> the provisions of this Law jeopardizes his right to =85claim (or deny) a =

> revoke.'
>
> I doubt that this case would get this far.
>
> But, contemplating if it did, the critical matter is=A0 ' When =85 the =

> Director deems,=85'
>
> The law provides no standard for the TD deeming rather than not =

> deeming.=A0 A bad reason is as sufficient as a good reason, or no reason =

> at all.=A0 There is no definition or standard of what constitutes =

> insufficiently compensated.=A0 Nor is there a definition of damage, =

> merely a recipe for knowing when it exists.=A0 Under such circumstances, =

> the law provides the TD interpret.
>
> The proper place to start is the law, specifically L64.=A0 L64B4,5 says =

> that there is no justification for a penalty if attention is drawn =

> after the round has ended, or=A0 the non revoking side calls to a future =

> board.=A0 This suggests that justice is time dependent.=A0 In this case, =

> not only has the NOS called to a future board, the round has ended, =

> but the event has ended. The time for compensation has passed.
>
i realize my description of facts was not detailed enough. the event was =

not ended, the revoke occured during the 2nd of 8 (18 boards) sessions; =

both pairs were in contention. the offending player reported it to =

director the next day, before the start of 3rd session. dummy discovered =

the revoke when seeing printed hand diagrams and reported it to director =

some minutes after his opponent. The director had every reason to =

believe it occured as separately reported to him by both sides. if he =

had to adjust score, his problem was to know on what grounds to evaluate =

equity.
jpr
>
> 'Declarer calls for 9 tricks, arguing he should not lose H10.'
>
> But he neither tells by what means nor how he would not lose some =

> other trick.=A0 Thus,=A0 I have no assertion from declarer what sufficien=
t =

> compensation is, nor damage inflicted, nor the spot cards to evaluate.
>
> I do not deem that the non-offending side is insufficiently =

> compensated by this Law.=A0 No tricks awarded, the result stands.
>
> *From: *Jean-Pierre Rocafort <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 31, 2019 5:45 PM
> *To: *bridge laws liste arbitrage <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Blml] equity
>
> Le 31/01/2019 =E0 20:44, Roger Pewick a =E9crit=A0:
> >
> > How did the TD verify the occurrence of an established revoke?
> >
> it was not contested as offending player was the first one to report it
> after the end of the session.
> jpr
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Roger pewick
> >
> > *From: *Jean-Pierre Rocafort <mailto:[email protected]>
> > *Sent: *Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:59 AM
> > *To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > *Subject: *[Blml] equity
> >
> > This case of revoke occured in a national pairs competition:
> >
> > =A0=A0N-all=A0=A0=A0 K1065
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 J952
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 5
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0=A0 J1072
> > =A0=A0QJ732 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 A84
> > =A0=A0-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A1043
> > =A0=A01098=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A73
> > =A0=A0AK653=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Q98
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 9
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 KQ876
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 KQJ642
> > =A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 4
> >
> > following a competitive auction, north was declarer in 5H doubled.
> > C8 won by CK
> > SQ wins 2nd trick
> > D8 won by DA
> > D3 won by dummy's K
> > HK wins 5th trick
> > then declarer ruffs D4 with H9, overruffed by H10! and declarer claims 8
> > tricks
> > some time later (too late for L64A1) the revoke is discovered so un
> > adjusted score is needed.
> > declarer calls for 9 tricks, arguing he should not lose H10.
> > defenser argues declarer misplayed the hand, he should have first played
> > a 2nd round of trump to his J. as he played, D ruffed then low H, east
> > should take HA then force dummy with a club preventing him from removing
> > trumps.
> > declarer argues back, first that somebody who is not able to follow suit
> > should not be deemed able to find a complex defense, 2nd that had the
> > revoke been corrected, H10 would have been a penalized card and east
> > could not have played HA on the next trick.
> > How many tricks should be awarded to declarer?
> > jpr
> >
> > --
> >
>
> -- =

> ----------------------------
> Jean-Pierre Rocafort
> 4 bis impasse Trey-Dousteau
> 31100 Toulouse France
>


-- =

----------------------------
Jean-Pierre Rocafort
4 bis impasse Trey-Dousteau
31100 Toulouse France
----------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml