Re: equity
Roger Pewick <[email protected]> Sat, 2 Feb 2019 19:14:03 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <MWHPR08MB3438E71DBB1A9BB18C3E5EEAB4930@MWHPR08MB3438.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> |
--===============0544193964== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR08MB3438E71DBB1A9BB18C3E5EEAB4930MWHPR08MB3438namp_" --_000_MWHPR08MB3438E71DBB1A9BB18C3E5EEAB4930MWHPR08MB3438namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have seen the identical situation personally. In 1993 I traveled 5 hours= for an 8pm game time. Actual start was 9pm. Late in the session, pard le= d a club won by dummy's ace. Small club, cover, ruff, overruf. Seeing decl= arer's 16 tricks I tossed the trump AK on the table and north scored. Left = at the end of the session before hand records. The next morning the hand r= ecord proved the pard had revoked. Told the TD that I claimed at T3 where = declarer never had a realistic chance to discover the revoke. TD wasn't ki= nd in telling me to get lost. Not withstanding the bedside manner, I think= the TD was right- the hand was over when the 'NOS' called in a subsequent = auction. There is no way to adjudicate damage without knowing the precise = spots outstanding, and fat chance knowing that. As for equity, my view is that equity is a function of the situation. For = instance, the proper time for the right to remedy a revoke expires when the= other side calls to the next (sic) board. The right being established by = drawing attention to the failure to follow suit. Under this view, there is no equity in your case because attention was not = drawn before the non offender had called on a subsequent board. I do not k= now why the WBF provided no time limit to draw attention and I won't specul= ate. If the WBF understood the damage of a revoke, they surely would provide rem= edies that not only are simpler, but would be an impetus to greater skill, = not to mention fewer infractions rather than more. A revoke causes damage = in three spheres. 1. gain tricks by ruffing 2. turns cards that can win = tricks legally into cards that can't win tricks legally (and vice versa)/ t= ransfer tempo 3. is an impetus to change an intended line of play. In othe= r words, damage from a revoke consists of discouragement of an advantageous= line of play, or making unwinnable tricks otherwise winnable absent the re= voke. Of the three spheres the third is the most destructive. Immense time can = be consumed coping with incorrect pictures of the cards with the consequent= likelihood of further increased loss. The subject hand is such a case. I= t might be said that declarer was thereby induced to claim with an incorrec= t view of the cards- a claim that equity requires he be held to should east= correct his revoke. An additional facet of damage by revoke occurs when a revoke has been impro= perly concealed. An example being when attention is drawn properly to a fa= ilure to follow that indeed is a revoke and the player improperly does not= acknowledge (and correct) it. It is the case of improper concealment that= equity make it right to remedy such a revoke which is verified before the = correction period expires. In the subject case, attention was drawn not du= ring the hand but after the session and thus are outside the sphere of impr= oper concealment. Further, when a revoke is corrected, there is the damage from the imbalance= of turns when revoker withdraws the revoking card to substitute a card- e= ffectively taking two turns that trick. So, changing the subject to what adjusted score is equitable? Prior to the= revoke, declarer had a plan; and after the revoke he had a different plan.= He was entitled to his original plan and what the opponents do. He is ma= de whole with his original plan and what the opponent would have done. Tha= t is equitable. In practice, the objective will be at best approximated. Why? How often i= s it to be expected that declarer will announce his original plan when it w= as inferior=85and after seeing all the cards? In other words, the closer i= n time to the revoke trick declarer asserts his original plan, the more cre= dible it can be expected to be. Fortunately, we are unable to read minds w= ith much efficacy=85but we are able to measure reasonably (if not accuratel= y) the credibility of people's stories and balance the interests of adversa= rial claims. After all, bridge is a game of what these players do given th= e limitation on communication. From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 5:42 PM To: bridge laws liste arbitrage<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Blml] equity Le 01/02/2019 =E0 22:41, Roger Pewick a =E9crit : > > After an event a player asserts he revoked on a board (and no ruling > was made). While his opponent did not confirm, he did not dispute the > assertion. 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 (L64C1) There is no time limit constraining the application > of L64. > > . 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. 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. And, what evidence does the TD have that > such a revoke occurred. 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. On > the other side, the cards have been mixed; there is no assertion as to > remaining cards. What would give the TD the confidence that he was > not violating the law by making a L64C ruling? 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 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 ' When =85 the > Director deems,=85' > > The law provides no standard for the TD deeming rather than not > deeming. A bad reason is as sufficient as a good reason, or no reason > at all. There is no definition or standard of what constitutes > insufficiently compensated. Nor is there a definition of damage, > merely a recipe for knowing when it exists. Under such circumstances, > the law provides the TD interpret. > > The proper place to start is the law, specifically L64. L64B4,5 says > that there is no justification for a penalty if attention is drawn > after the round has ended, or the non revoking side calls to a future > board. This suggests that justice is time dependent. 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. Thus, I have no assertion from declarer what sufficient > 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. 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 : > > > > 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: > > > > N-all K1065 > > J952 > > 5 > > J1072 > > QJ732 A84 > > - A1043 > > 1098 A73 > > AK653 Q98 > > 9 > > KQ876 > > KQJ642 > > 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 playe= d > > 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 removin= g > > trumps. > > declarer argues back, first that somebody who is not able to follow sui= t > > 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 --_000_MWHPR08MB3438E71DBB1A9BB18C3E5EEAB4930MWHPR08MB3438namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:sc= hemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/of= fice/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows-1= 252"> <meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --></style> </head> <body lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"#954F72"> <div class=3D"WordSection1"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">I have seen the identi= cal situation personally. In 1993 I traveled 5 hours for an 8pm game = time. Actual start was 9pm. Late in the session, pard led a clu= b won by dummy's ace. Small club, cover, ruff, overruf. Seeing declarer's 16 tricks I tossed the trump AK on the table and north s= cored. Left at the end of the session before hand records. The next m= orning the hand record proved the pard had revoked. Told the TD that = I claimed at T3 where declarer never had a realistic chance to discover the revoke. TD wasn't kind in telling m= e to get lost. Not withstanding the bedside manner, I think the TD wa= s right- the hand was over when the 'NOS' called in a subsequent auction.&n= bsp; There is no way to adjudicate damage without knowing the precise spots outstanding, and fat chance knowing that.<span s= tyle=3D"font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">As for equity, my view= is that equity is a function of the situation. For instance, the pro= per time for the right to remedy a revoke expires when the other side calls= to the next (sic) board. The right being established by drawing attention to the failure to follow suit.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">Under this view, there= is no equity in your case because attention was not drawn before the non o= ffender had called on a subsequent board. I do not know why the WBF p= rovided no time limit to draw attention and I won't speculate.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">If the WBF understood = the damage of a revoke, they surely would provide remedies that not only ar= e simpler, but would be an impetus to greater skill, not to mention fewer i= nfractions rather than more. A revoke causes damage in three spheres. 1. gain tricks by ruffing 2.&n= bsp; turns cards that can win tricks legally into cards that can't win tric= ks legally (and vice versa)/ transfer tempo 3. is an impetus to change an i= ntended line of play. In other words, damage from a revoke consists of <span style=3D"color:black">discouragement of an adva= ntageous line of play, or making unwinnable tricks otherwise winnable absen= t the revoke.</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">Of the three spheres t= he third is the most destructive. Immense time can be consumed = coping with incorrect pictures of the cards with the consequent likelihood = of further increased loss. The subject hand is such a case. It might be said that declarer was thereby induced to c= laim with an incorrect view of the cards- a claim that equity requires he b= e held to should east correct his revoke.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">An additional facet of= damage by revoke occurs when a revoke has been improperly concealed. = An example being when attention is drawn properly to a failure to follow t= hat indeed is a revoke and the player improperly does not acknowledge (and correct) it. It is the case of improper co= ncealment that equity make it right to remedy such a revoke which is verifi= ed before the correction period expires. In the subject case, attenti= on was drawn not during the hand but after the session and thus are outside the sphere of improper concealment.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">Further, when a revoke= is corrected, there is the damage from the imbalance of turns when r= evoker withdraws the revoking card to substitute a card- effectively taking= two turns that trick.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">So, changing the subje= ct to what adjusted score is equitable? Prior to the revoke, declarer= had a plan; and after the revoke he had a different plan. He was ent= itled to his original plan and what the opponents do. He is made whole with his original plan and what the opponent wo= uld have done. That is equitable.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"text-autospace:none">In practice, the objec= tive will be at best approximated. Why? How often is it to be e= xpected that declarer will announce his original plan when it was inferior= =85and after seeing all the cards? In other words, the closer in time to the revoke trick declarer asserts his original plan,= the more credible it can be expected to be. Fortunately, we are unab= le to read minds with much efficacy=85but we are able to measure reasonably= (if not accurately) the credibility of people's stories and balance the interests of adversarial claims. Af= ter all, bridge is a game of what these players do given the limitation on = communication.</p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <div style=3D"mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E= 1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"border:none;padding:0in"><b>From: </b><a hr= ef=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Jean-Pierre Rocafort</a><br> <b>Sent: </b>Friday, February 1, 2019 5:42 PM<br> <b>To: </b><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">bridge laws liste arbitrage</a= ><br> <b>Subject: </b>Re: [Blml] equity</p> </div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">Le 01/02/2019 =E0 22:41, Roger Pewick a =E9crit = ;:<br> ><br> > After an event a player asserts he revoked on a board (and no ruling <= br> > was made). While his opponent did not confirm, he did not disput= e the <br> > assertion. These circumstances are addressed by L64C; critical i= ssues <br> > are the occurrence of an established revoke, and deeming by the TD <br= > > insufficient compensation.<br> ><br> > Firstly, if an established revoke occurred it must be dealt with by <b= r> > the TD if attention is drawn to it- When, after any established <br> > revoke,=85 (L64C1) There is no time limit constraining the appli= cation <br> > of L64.<br> ><br> > . However, if an assertion of a revoke was made that did not in = fact <br> > occur it would be wrong for the TD to act as if it had occurred.<br> ><br> > One reason being that an improper ruse can wrongfully alter scores and= <br> > affect the proper ranking. This can occur either by intention or= by <br> > mistaken memory- so called 'unintentional'.<br> ><br> > Thus, a prudent TD will desire high confidence that L64C applies <br> > before making it function. And, what evidence does the TD have t= hat <br> > such a revoke occurred. There is an assertion by the putative <b= r> > offender and a lack of confirmation (but not disputed) by the <br> > opponent; there is an assertion of the order of some of the cards.&nbs= p; On <br> > the other side, the cards have been mixed; there is no assertion as to= <br> > remaining cards. What would give the TD the confidence that he w= as <br> > not violating the law by making a L64C ruling? It is not fool-pr= oof, <br> > but without hand records if each side wrote the sequence of play, or <= br> > the remaining cards at the revoke, under the pain of 1 board PP = to <br> > both sides if there was any discrepancy=85 you see, players willing to= <br> > take that kind of hit if their opponent missed a spot would give me <b= r> > pretty high confidence that it is the real deal.<br> ><br> > There is a reason that L65D says 'A player who fails to comply with <b= r> > the provisions of this Law jeopardizes his right to =85claim (or deny)= a <br> > revoke.'<br> ><br> > I doubt that this case would get this far.<br> ><br> > But, contemplating if it did, the critical matter is ' When =85 = the <br> > Director deems,=85'<br> ><br> > The law provides no standard for the TD deeming rather than not <br> > deeming. A bad reason is as sufficient as a good reason, or no r= eason <br> > at all. There is no definition or standard of what constitutes <= br> > insufficiently compensated. Nor is there a definition of damage,= <br> > merely a recipe for knowing when it exists. Under such circumsta= nces, <br> > the law provides the TD interpret.<br> ><br> > The proper place to start is the law, specifically L64. L64B4,5 = says <br> > that there is no justification for a penalty if attention is drawn <br= > > after the round has ended, or the non revoking side calls to a f= uture <br> > board. This suggests that justice is time dependent. In th= is case, <br> > not only has the NOS called to a future board, the round has ended, <b= r> > but the event has ended. The time for compensation has passed.<br> ><br> i realize my description of facts was not detailed enough. the event was <b= r> not ended, the revoke occured during the 2nd of 8 (18 boards) sessions; <br= > both pairs were in contention. the offending player reported it to <br> director the next day, before the start of 3rd session. dummy discovered <b= r> the revoke when seeing printed hand diagrams and reported it to director <b= r> some minutes after his opponent. The director had every reason to <br> believe it occured as separately reported to him by both sides. if he <br> had to adjust score, his problem was to know on what grounds to evaluate <b= r> equity.<br> jpr<br> ><br> > 'Declarer calls for 9 tricks, arguing he should not lose H10.'<br> ><br> > But he neither tells by what means nor how he would not lose some <br> > other trick. Thus, I have no assertion from declarer what = sufficient <br> > compensation is, nor damage inflicted, nor the spot cards to evaluate.= <br> ><br> > I do not deem that the non-offending side is insufficiently <br> > compensated by this Law. No tricks awarded, the result stands.<b= r> ><br> > *From: *Jean-Pierre Rocafort <<a href=3D"mailto:jp.rocafort@wanadoo= .fr">mailto:[email protected]</a>><br> > *Sent: *Thursday, January 31, 2019 5:45 PM<br> > *To: *bridge laws liste arbitrage <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ">mailto:[email protected]</a>><br> > *Subject: *Re: [Blml] equity<br> ><br> > Le 31/01/2019 =E0 20:44, Roger Pewick a =E9crit :<br> > ><br> > > How did the TD verify the occurrence of an established revoke?<br= > > ><br> > it was not contested as offending player was the first one to report i= t<br> > after the end of the session.<br> > jpr<br> > ><br> > > Regards<br> > ><br> > > Roger pewick<br> > ><br> > > *From: *Jean-Pierre Rocafort <<a href=3D"mailto:jp.rocafort@wa= nadoo.fr">mailto:[email protected]</a>><br> > > *Sent: *Thursday, January 31, 2019 11:59 AM<br> > > *To: *[email protected] <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto= :[email protected]</a>><br> > > *Subject: *[Blml] equity<br> > ><br> > > This case of revoke occured in a national pairs competition:<br> > ><br> > > N-all K1065<br> > > J952<br> > > 5<br> > > J1072<br> > > QJ732 A84<br= > > > - &nbs= p; A1043<br> > > 1098 &= nbsp; A73<br> > > AK653 = Q98<br> > > 9<br> > > KQ876<br> > > KQJ642<br> > > 4<br> > ><br> > > following a competitive auction, north was declarer in 5H doubled= .<br> > > C8 won by CK<br> > > SQ wins 2nd trick<br> > > D8 won by DA<br> > > D3 won by dummy's K<br> > > HK wins 5th trick<br> > > then declarer ruffs D4 with H9, overruffed by H10! and declarer c= laims 8<br> > > tricks<br> > > some time later (too late for L64A1) the revoke is discovered so = un<br> > > adjusted score is needed.<br> > > declarer calls for 9 tricks, arguing he should not lose H10.<br> > > defenser argues declarer misplayed the hand, he should have first= played<br> > > a 2nd round of trump to his J. as he played, D ruffed then low H,= east<br> > > should take HA then force dummy with a club preventing him from r= emoving<br> > > trumps.<br> > > declarer argues back, first that somebody who is not able to foll= ow suit<br> > > should not be deemed able to find a complex defense, 2nd that had= the<br> > > revoke been corrected, H10 would have been a penalized card and e= ast<br> > > could not have played HA on the next trick.<br> > > How many tricks should be awarded to declarer?<br> > > jpr<br> > ----------------------------<br> > Jean-Pierre Rocafort<br> > 4 bis impasse Trey-Dousteau<br> > 31100 Toulouse France<br> <br> </p> </div> </body> </html> --_000_MWHPR08MB3438E71DBB1A9BB18C3E5EEAB4930MWHPR08MB3438namp_-- --===============0544193964== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --===============0544193964==--