[nige1]

In a no-trump contract, declarer plays ♣AKx from dummy while both defenders follow but declarer, who started with four small clubs, discards a loser on the third round. When declarer regains the lead and attempts to cash his two small club winners, defenders call the director about the established revoke.

• How many club tricks should the director allocate to declarer?
• If declarer's manoeuvre rectifies the count for a successful pseudo-squeeze, how should the director rule?

[blackshoe]

It seems declarer did not win the revoke trick, so after the play one trick is transferred to the defense. You can call this a club trick if you like, but the laws don't do so. If, after the transfer of the trick, the director determines that the revoke (I wouldn't call it a "maneuver", I'd call it a mistake) allowed declarer to gain in spite of the penalty (IOW, defense was "insufficiently compensated") he should adjust the score. The details of that depend on the actual hands, the actual play, and the director's determination of how the play might have gone absent the revoke.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-24, 23:26, said:

It seems declarer did not win the revoke trick, so after the play one trick is transferred to the defense. You can call this a club trick if you like, but the laws don't do so. If, after the transfer of the trick, the director determines that the revoke (I wouldn't call it a "maneuver", I'd call it a mistake) allowed declarer to gain in spite of the penalty (IOW, defense was "insufficiently compensated") he should adjust the score. The details of that depend on the actual hands, the actual play, and the director's determination of how the play might have gone absent the revoke.

I think this may slightly miss the point or may not depending on the exact phrasing of the law.

If the defence make an error (like I discard a couple of aces), can I rely on restoration of equity from the revoke ? and what level of incompetence do I need to show (discarding wrong to the pseudo squeeze ?) before I lose the right to restitution ?

I suspect SEWoG is not quoted in this law, but is that about the level of error required to not get restoration of equity ?

[barmar]

I think rectifying this requires a significant number of judgement calls. Mainly, I would look for errors that were likely caused by the revoke, since the NOS will have an incorrect count of the hand and play accordingly. Misplays that don't seem to be related to the revoke would stand.

[blackshoe]

What Barry said.

Quote

Law 64C: When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-July-25, 04:15, said:

I think rectifying this requires a significant number of judgement calls. Mainly, I would look for errors that were likely caused by the revoke, since the NOS will have an incorrect count of the hand and play accordingly. Misplays that don't seem to be related to the revoke would stand.

Yup, and once declarer reveals the revoke in this case by producing the suit he ruffed, provided the killing discard has not been made yet, the defence have the information they need so are not fooled count wise by the revoke, but if without the revoke they wouldn't have the chance to go wrong (ie they'd win the 3rd round and be able to play one of the suits involved to know whether they needed to keep it subsequently), what happens now ? Does this qualify as "caused by the revoke" even if you feel it should be obvious what the right thing to do was ?

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-25, 07:02, said:

Yup, and once declarer reveals the revoke in this case by producing the suit he ruffed, provided the killing discard has not been made yet, the defence have the information they need so are not fooled count wise by the revoke.

Oh yes, they are fooled.

Without the revoke, they would have had all the correct information and correct information only.
With the revoke, they have all the correct information and incorrect information. This incorrect information is known to be incorrect and can (should) be discarded. The problem is that the human brain doesn't work like that. It cannot discard information just like that. As a result, the revoke leaves a lot of confusion, making errors much more likely. Therefore, an NOS should get some leeway when it comes to errors.

Rik

[RMB1]

But why the non-offenders did what they did with the revoke is irrelevant.

Either they get they get the table result with the Law 64A penalty or they get an adjusted score based on the outcome without the revoke. There is not adjustment based on the revoke and then the non-offenders being mislead.

In assessing the possibilities without the revoke, we would not necessarily assume the defence would let themselves be pseudo-squeezed just because they were pseudo-squeezed adfter the revoke - but anyway it seems the position would not arise.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2012-July-25, 08:55, said:

But why the non-offenders did what they did with the revoke is irrelevant.

Either they get they get the table result with the Law 64A penalty or they get an adjusted score based on the outcome without the revoke. There is not adjustment based on the revoke and then the non-offenders being mislead.

In assessing the possibilities without the revoke, we would not necessarily assume the defence would let themselves be pseudo-squeezed just because they were pseudo-squeezed adfter the revoke - but anyway it seems the position would not arise.

OK, in this case, but what I'm trying to establish more generally (I've had situations where defenders have done something really crass that chucks 3 or 4 tricks after a revoke) is how bad a defence has to be to lose the right to the "best defence" version of what would happen without the revoke, and how you assess the score.

[Trinidad]

RMB1, on 2012-July-25, 08:55, said:

But why the non-offenders did what they did with the revoke is irrelevant.

Either they get they get the table result with the Law 64A penalty or they get an adjusted score based on the outcome without the revoke. There is not adjustment based on the revoke and then the non-offenders being mislead.

In assessing the possibilities without the revoke, we would not necessarily assume the defence would let themselves be pseudo-squeezed just because they were pseudo-squeezed adfter the revoke - but anyway it seems the position would not arise.

Obviously we don't correct the revoke twice (with 64A and 64C). But the rest is exactly my point.

What if declarer revokes in trick 3, the play gets messed up between trick 3 and 8, and at the start of trick 9, everybody has:
- the exact same cards
- and the exact same correct information
as they would have had if the revoke had not occurred?

There are only two differences: In the process declarer got an extra trick (not the revoke trick) and the defense has had to deal with incorrect information. This incorrect information is acting like "noise" on the correct information which makes it much harder to draw clear conclusions.

Because of the added "noise" the defenders err and are pseudo squeezed, losing a trick that they didn't need to lose, and might not have lost if there wouldn't have been a revoke.

Are we now transfering 1 trick (64A) or are we adjusting according to 64C (possibly awarding a weighted score) saying that the defenders wouldn't (might not) have erred without the infraction?

Cyberyeti seems to suggest 64A, transferring 1 trick. I am arguing 64C, effectively transferring 2 tricks, at least with some probability.

Rik

[wank]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-25, 07:02, said:

Yup, and once declarer reveals the revoke in this case by producing the suit he ruffed, provided the killing discard has not been made yet, the defence have the information they need so are not fooled count wise by the revoke

back in the real world, most players don't get much practise dealing with opposition revokes and their subsequent play might be expected to be a little off, even if they are the type of player who might be expected to accurately count the hand in normal cirumstances.

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2012-July-25, 12:15, said:

Cyberyeti seems to suggest 64A, transferring 1 trick. I am arguing 64C, effectively transferring 2 tricks, at least with some probability.

To me it's a judgment call between the two, depending on how crass getting the endgame wrong is (like keeping a suit where all other cards have gone for example). Hence why I'm asking where the boundary of how stupid I can be and get my trick back is, and indeed whether I can do something utterly ridiculous, given that without the revoke I couldn't get it wrong.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-25, 03:25, said:

I think this may slightly miss the point or may not depending on the exact phrasing of the law.

If the defence make an error (like I discard a couple of aces), can I rely on restoration of equity from the revoke ? and what level of incompetence do I need to show (discarding wrong to the pseudo squeeze ?) before I lose the right to restitution ?

I suspect SEWoG is not quoted in this law, but is that about the level of error required to not get restoration of equity ?

The Law refers to assigning an adjusted score. Thus all of the normal parts of adjusted scores come in to play, weighting outside the ACBL, different standards for both sides inside the ACBL, reduced redress due to SEWoG and so forth.

[FrancesHinden]

Trinidad, on 2012-July-25, 12:15, said:

Obviously we don't correct the revoke twice (with 64A and 64C). But the rest is exactly my point.

What if declarer revokes in trick 3, the play gets messed up between trick 3 and 8, and at the start of trick 9, everybody has:
- the exact same cards
- and the exact same correct information
as they would have had if the revoke had not occurred?

There are only two differences: In the process declarer got an extra trick (not the revoke trick) and the defense has had to deal with incorrect information. This incorrect information is acting like "noise" on the correct information which makes it much harder to draw clear conclusions.

Because of the added "noise" the defenders err and are pseudo squeezed, losing a trick that they didn't need to lose, and might not have lost if there wouldn't have been a revoke.

Are we now transfering 1 trick (64A) or are we adjusting according to 64C (possibly awarding a weighted score) saying that the defenders wouldn't (might not) have erred without the infraction?

Cyberyeti seems to suggest 64A, transferring 1 trick. I am arguing 64C, effectively transferring 2 tricks, at least with some probability.

Rik

No, there is a third difference.
I might be wrong, but I think Nige1 may have intended to ask a slightly different question: it's not a matter of whether the count has been 'rectified' or not (in both cases declarer lost the third round of clubs, whether he revoked or not).

In the revoke situation, the defence have to find a discard on the "fifth" round of clubs. Without the revoke they would never have needed to defend against a (pseudo) squeeze.
We could write a hand where the extra discard is a genuine squeeze, then we have an easy 64C adjustment.
The question is what if it's a pseudo squeeze: here I think we also adjust, because without the revoke the defence wouldn't have needed to think about what to discard.

(I started to try and construct a hand, but after 5 minutes I couldn't get it to work and didn't want to spend any longer. But I think the principle is sound.)