Fwd: equity
Richard Hills <[email protected]> Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:40:34 +1100
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============0829157310== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-39BD3DDC-CAE3-4ACA-BEF5-BAAF6E595E7D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Apple-Mail-39BD3DDC-CAE3-4ACA-BEF5-BAAF6E595E7D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Apologies to Steve Willner for him receiving two copies of this email. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Hills <[email protected]> > Date: 5 February 2019 at 4:18:39 pm AEDT > To: Steve Willner <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Blml] equity >=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> This is an interesting legal question that I haven't seen before. In=20 >> the past, I've always seen L64C equity defined as "without the revoke,"=20= >> not "after the revoke and a correction, leaving a penalty card."=20 >=20 >=20 > Richard Hills: >=20 > =E2=80=9CLaw 64C equity=E2=80=9D is a repealed concept from the 2007 Lawbo= ok. The new Law 64C concept in the 2017 Lawbook is =E2=80=9CRedress of Damag= e=E2=80=9D. >=20 > In my opinion, if either Law 64B4 or Law 64B5 apply, then not only are pot= ential automatic trick adjustments nullified, but also potential penalty car= ds are nullified. >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > Richard Hills >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 >> On 5 Feb 2019, at 1:40 pm, Steve Willner <[email protected]> wrote: >>=20 >>> On 1/31/19 11:53 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >>> some time later (too late for L64A1) the revoke is discovered so un >>> adjusted score is needed. >>=20 >> The formatting was hard to read. Please send in plain text with no=20 >> tabs. I don't think details matter for my reply, though. >>=20 >>> declarer calls for 9 tricks, arguing he should not lose H10. >> (revoke card) >>=20 >> He certainly should not lose it on that trick but might lose it later. >>=20 >>> defenser argues declarer misplayed the hand, >>=20 >> This is irrelevant, of course. Play prior to the revoke stands, and an=20= >> adjusted score is based on what would have happened absent the revoke.=20= >> As far as I can tell, that may be a weighted score. >>=20 >>> as he played, D ruffed then low H, east >>> should take HA then force dummy with a club preventing him from removing= >>> trumps. >>=20 >> This is a possible line of play that needs to be considered. >>=20 >>> declarer argues back, first that somebody who is not able to follow suit= >>> should not be deemed able to find a complex defense, >>=20 >> Indeed I'd be inclined not to give much weight to a defense that is=20 >> complex, but that doesn't necessarily mean zero. >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> This is an interesting legal question that I haven't seen before. In=20 >> the past, I've always seen L64C equity defined as "without the revoke,"=20= >> not "after the revoke and a correction, leaving a penalty card."=20 >> However, one could argue that L72C applies, and the offenders should get=20= >> the worse of these two results. Is there anything that says which is=20 >> proper? >>=20 >> In the actual case, I'm not a good enough analyst to work out what would=20= >> have happened after the revoke. Doesn't declarer have to guess who is=20= >> void? Depending on East's skill, I'd tend to give East's suggested=20 >> defense small weight but not zero. I could easily be persuaded otherwise=20= >> be a better analysis. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --Apple-Mail-39BD3DDC-CAE3-4ACA-BEF5-BAAF6E595E7D Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D= utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto">Apologies to Steve Willner for him receivin= g two copies of this email.<br><br><div id=3D"AppleMailSignature" dir=3D"ltr= ">Sent from my iPad</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><b= r></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><b>From:</b> Richard Hill= s <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>>= <br><b>Date:</b> 5 February 2019 at 4:18:39 pm AEDT<br><b>To:</b> Steve Will= ner <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>><br><b= >Subject:</b> <b>Re: [Blml] equity</b><br><br></div></blockquote><blockquote= type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D= "text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"= ><blockquote type=3D"cite"><font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"caret-colo= r: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">2nd that had the= <br></span></font></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><font color=3D"#000= 000"><span style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgba(255, 2= 55, 255, 0);">revoke been corrected, H10 would have been a penalized card an= d east<br></span></font></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><font color=3D= "#000000"><span style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgba(2= 55, 255, 255, 0);">could not have played HA on the next trick.<br></span></f= ont></blockquote><font color=3D"#000000"><span style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0= , 0); background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>This is an interesting l= egal question that I haven't seen before. In <br>the past, I've a= lways seen L64C equity defined as "without the revoke," <br>not "after t= he revoke and a correction, leaving a penalty card." </span></font></di= v></blockquote></div><div><br></div>Richard Hills:<div><br></div><div>=E2=80= =9CLaw 64C equity=E2=80=9D is a repealed concept from the 2007 Lawbook. The n= ew Law 64C concept in the 2017 Lawbook is =E2=80=9CRedress of Damage=E2=80=9D= .</div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion, if either Law 64B4 or Law 64B5 app= ly, then not only are potential automatic trick adjustments nullified, but a= lso potential penalty cards are nullified.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wis= hes,</div><div><br></div><div>Richard Hills<br><br><div id=3D"AppleMailSigna= ture" dir=3D"ltr">Sent from my iPad</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>On 5 Feb 2019,= at 1:40 pm, Steve Willner <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">swillner= @nhcc.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"= ltr"><span>On 1/31/19 11:53 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote:</span><br><block= quote type=3D"cite"><span>some time later (too late for L64A1) the revoke is= discovered so un</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>adj= usted score is needed.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>The for= matting was hard to read. Please send in plain text with no </span><br= ><span>tabs. I don't think details matter for my reply, though.</span>= <br><span></span><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>declarer calls for 9 tr= icks, arguing he should not lose H10.</span><br></blockquote><span>(revoke c= ard)</span><br><span></span><br><span>He certainly should not lose it on tha= t trick but might lose it later.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type= =3D"cite"><span>defenser argues declarer misplayed the hand,</span><br></blo= ckquote><span></span><br><span>This is irrelevant, of course. Play pri= or to the revoke stands, and an </span><br><span>adjusted score is based on w= hat would have happened absent the revoke. </span><br><span>As far as I can t= ell, that may be a weighted score.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote ty= pe=3D"cite"><span>as he played, D ruffed then low H, east</span><br></blockq= uote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>should take HA then force dummy with a c= lub preventing him from removing</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"= cite"><span>trumps.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>This is a p= ossible line of play that needs to be considered.</span><br><span></span><br= ><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>declarer argues back, first that somebody w= ho is not able to follow suit</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cit= e"><span>should not be deemed able to find a complex defense,</span><br></bl= ockquote><span></span><br><span>Indeed I'd be inclined not to give much weig= ht to a defense that is </span><br><span>complex, but that doesn't necessari= ly mean zero.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>2nd= that had the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>revoke b= een corrected, H10 would have been a penalized card and east</span><br></blo= ckquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>could not have played HA on the next= trick.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>This is an interesting= legal question that I haven't seen before. In </span><br><span>the pa= st, I've always seen L64C equity defined as "without the revoke," </span><br= ><span>not "after the revoke and a correction, leaving a penalty card." </sp= an><br><span>However, one could argue that L72C applies, and the offenders s= hould get </span><br><span>the worse of these two results. Is there an= ything that says which is </span><br><span>proper?</span><br><span></span><b= r><span>In the actual case, I'm not a good enough analyst to work out what w= ould </span><br><span>have happened after the revoke. Doesn't declarer= have to guess who is </span><br><span>void? Depending on East's skill= , I'd tend to give East's suggested </span><br><span>defense small weight bu= t not zero. I could easily be persuaded otherwise </span><br><span>be a bett= er analysis.</span><br><span>_______________________________________________= </span><br><span>Blml mailing list</span><br><span><a href=3D"mailto:Blml@rt= flb.org">[email protected]</a></span><br><span><a href=3D"http://lists.rtflb.or= g/mailman/listinfo/blml">http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml</a></s= pan><br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-39BD3DDC-CAE3-4ACA-BEF5-BAAF6E595E7D-- --===============0829157310== 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 --===============0829157310==--