[lamford]

---

IMPs; Table result 7Hxx-11 by South NS-6400.

Two complete beginners arrived at a North London club on Tuesday. They had only attended lesson 1, which included basic bidding and play of one hand in no-trumps, but as there was a half-table they were allowed to play. RR, South, picked up his biggest hand since a couple of days earlier when he had an almost identical hand in Pula (see the link "The Wild Side" in Interesting Bridge Hands). Unfortunately he pulled the 7H card out when intending to bid 7D, and only noticed after the auction had ended so it could not be corrected. West led the queen of spades, ducked in dummy, and East ruffed this with a small heart. East-West were aware that a trump won the trick ahead of a plain card, but had not yet learned that one had to be void in the suit led to play a trump. East returned a spade, ruffed with the nine of hearts, and this continued for the first eight tricks with East and West ruffing spades and then the next four tricks with East and West ruffing clubs, West thinking that he could be over-ruffed if he played the six of hearts at any time. Trick 12 was finally over-ruffed by the Rabbit with the seven of hearts over West's six and RR was surprised to find that he won the last trick with the ace of diamonds.

RR, South, was profusely apologetic for his mispull, but SB, dummy, said that it did not matter, as +2940 was the most RR could score on the board. "If you had bid 7D, East-West might well have found the cheap sac." He entered 7Hxx= in the Bridgemate, but the beginners thought they were being scammed and called the director. RR said he thought there may have been a revoke at some point, but he could not put his finger on where.

"Tut, tut ...", said Oscar the Owl, arriving at the table. "... making your own rulings again, SB", he chastised. "This one is going to be complicated because of multiple revokes in the same suits. I am pleased to see that the new Laws have corrected the Beijing minute, however."

How do you rule?

[barmar]

Two tricks are transferred for the first spade ruff by each defender, and for the first club ruff by each defender, so 8 tricks are transferred. The remaining revokes do not get any adjustment because of 64B2: "it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player".

So instead of -11, he's -3: -1600.

Where did SB get 7Hxx= from?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-15, 11:14, said:

Two tricks are transferred for the first spade ruff by each defender, and for the first club ruff by each defender, so 8 tricks are transferred. The remaining revokes do not get any adjustment because of 64B2: "it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player".

So instead of -11, he's -3: -1600.

Where did SB get 7Hxx= from?

Under the new laws, the second and subsequent revokes in spades and the second revokes in clubs all gained a trick compared with not revoking, and we apply the correct interpretation of the Beijing minute, now law 64C2a:
"After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred".

The declarer would have won two spades and three club tricks but for the second and subsequent revokes in spades and clubs. The eight trick transfer for the first revoke by each of East and West in spades and clubs respectively are agreed. However, as SB points out, there are also five more potential tricks from the second and subsequent revokes by each side in each black suit which occurred after the first revokes. However, EW only won 11 tricks, so these are the most that can be transferred. SB is right, I think.

Declarer would have made 2 spades, 3 clubs and 8 tricks for the double-double initial revokes. He cannot be deprived of these by the repeated revokes!

[barmar]

You've completely lost me. How would declarer likely have made those 8 other tricks if the opponents hadn't made additional revokes? Can you show the likely line of play that leads to this? Even without this crazy cross-ruff, the defenders will have a hard time avoiding taking a bunch of trump tricks when they have 12 of them.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2017-September-16, 11:53, said:

You've completely lost me. How would declarer likely have made those 8 other tricks if the opponents hadn't made additional revokes? Can you show the likely line of play that leads to this? Even without this crazy cross-ruff, the defenders will have a hard time avoiding taking a bunch of trump tricks when they have 12 of them.

The misere line that EW are looking for must be to take their first revokes in different suits and hands, before any second-revoke-in-the-same-suit. The second-revoke-in-the-same-suit then become irrelevant as the TD is going to award equity from the point before such revokes.

So the first four tricks are cross-ruff revokes in the black suits. Then the defence can play four rounds of trumps and concede the rest. The defence have committed four revokes which are all subject to a two trick penalty and have won (just) enough tricks to be transfered. 13 tricks to declarer.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-16, 11:53, said:

You've completely lost me. How would declarer likely have made those 8 other tricks if the opponents hadn't made additional revokes? Can you show the likely line of play that leads to this? Even without this crazy cross-ruff, the defenders will have a hard time avoiding taking a bunch of trump tricks when they have 12 of them.

RMB1 is broadly right, but I submit it does not matter in which order the opponents make their revokes. The eight trick transfer is automatic for the four initial revokes. It is the extra tricks that the defenders made because of the second and subsequent revokes in the same suit that are then also transferred. Let us work back from the end:

a) Trick twelve. The second revoke at trick twelve in clubs is corrected and the six of hearts is replaced by the small club. Dummy discards, and wins the last trick with the seven of hearts. So declarer still has two tricks.
b) Trick eleven. The second revoke in clubs by East does not gain as declarer can only win two tricks without it. So no transfer for that.
b) Trick ten and nine. These are the first revokes in clubs by West and East and are subject to a 4-trick transfer as the revoker won the trick in each case.
c) Tricks seven and eight. These are ruffs of spade winners in dummy by both defenders. They are the fourth revokes in the same suit, but they each gain a trick from the situation immediately before, and cannot be allowed to gain. Without them, declarer would make five tricks, now he can only make three. So two tricks are transferred to restore equity.
d) Tricks five and six. These are the third revokes in the same suit. Again they each gain a trick in that they ruff one of dummy's winners and reduce declarer from five to four tricks. So two tricks are transferred to restore equity.
e) Tricks three and four. These are the second revokes in the same suit. Again they each gain a trick, reducing declarer from five to four tricks, and two tricks are transferred.
f) Tricks one and two. These are the first revokes in spades and so there is a 4-trick transfer.

So, declarer has 2 tricks he actually made, 8 tricks for the double-double revokes, and one trick for each of the revokes at tricks 3-8, which all gained one trick from the situation immediately before, more than 13 tricks. Viewed another way, declarer should have made five tricks without the second revokes, namely two spades and three clubs. The eight trick penalty for the double-double revoke is automatic, and "banked" as it were, and nothing to do with restoring equity. So declarer has 13 tricks and SB is right.

And maybe blackshoe should move this from simple rulings, as it appears to be more complicated than SB thought it was. He would not have even called the TD! Where I think posters may be going wrong is that equity is restored for the second revoke in the same suit COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE. The now infamous Riccardi Revoke Ruling failed to do this correctly, and the new laws clarify it.

[blackshoe]

Maybe. Too tired to think about it right now, though.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-16, 11:53, said:

Even without this crazy cross-ruff<snip>

Why do you think the cross-ruff was "crazy"? The two beginners had previously played "25", the national game of Ireland, where the rule is:

"To a non-trump lead, the others may either follow suit or trump, as preferred, but may discard only if unable to follow suit. The trick is taken by the highest card of the suit led or by the highest trump if any are played."

They had one bridge lesson, and had just learned
Law 44E: Tricks Containing Trumps A trick containing a trump is won by the player who has contributed to it the highest trump.

They had not yet learned
Law 44C: Requirement to Follow Suit In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. <snip>

Given their limited knowledge, their play was, as Spock would have said, "logical" and best play under the rules as they knew them in order to score 11 trumps separately. The Rabbit would not recognise a revoke if it had punched him on the nose, and SB of course knew there had been a revoke as early as trick one but it was in his interests not to attempt to prevent any of the multiple infractions.

[barmar]

Well, it's kind of crazy that someone failed to teach them the bridge law that "takes precedence over all other requirements."

Then again, burying the most important rule deep in the middle of the law book is also kind of crazy.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-18, 08:15, said:

Well, it's kind of crazy that someone failed to teach them the bridge law that "takes precedence over all other requirements."

Then again, burying the most important rule deep in the middle of the law book is also kind of crazy.

Indeed. The beginners thought you would have to follow suit in no-trumps, which was the play in lesson one, but, as stated in the OP, they had not yet had lesson 2, so their assumption that a trump could be played instead of following suit was a reasonable one. Indeed, when I look at trick-taking card games on the web, the requirement to follow suit is by no means universal. And I agree that it should be one of the early laws, although it is quite early in the play of the hand.

And do you now agree the adjustment (the term, meaning "small alteration" seems inappropriate!) to 7Hxx=?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-September-19, 03:06, said:

And do you now agree the adjustment (the term, meaning "small alteration" seems inappropriate!) to 7Hxx=?

I'm still not sure I do. You wrote "It is the extra tricks that the defenders made because of the second and subsequent revokes in the same suit that are then also transferred." But we don't automatically transfer any tricks for subsequent revokes in the same suit. 64C2a says:

Quote

After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred.

So would declarer have made more than 8 tricks if the opponents had followed suit instead of revoking and ruffing? Perhaps. Would he have made all 13 tricks? That doesn't seem possible. The defenders can't avoid ruffing something eventually, and those tricks don't get transferred in addition to the ones that were automatically transferred for the first revoke in each suit.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-19, 08:50, said:

So would declarer have made more than 8 tricks if the opponents had followed suit instead of revoking and ruffing? Perhaps. Would he have made all 13 tricks? That doesn't seem possible. The defenders can't avoid ruffing something eventually, and those tricks don't get transferred in addition to the ones that were automatically transferred for the first revoke in each suit.

The key phrase is "had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred". If, for example, East had not ruffed trick three, then declarer would have made 5 tricks, two spades and three clubs. He actually made 2, the last two tricks. So, three tricks are transferred for the second and subsequent revokes in the same suit. The eight tricks for the first revokes by each side in each black suit are automatically transferred (there is no equity test for those). The tricks "made by declarer" for the purpose of 64C2a are the ones he had in front of him at the end. That was two. If there had not been the second revokes in the same suit he would have made five. Therefore three extra tricks are rectifications for the second and subsequent revokes. We both agree that eight tricks are rectifications for the first revokes. So 7Hxx=. QED.

[manudude03]

I would have interpreted "more" in that context as being compared to the result after the automatic penalties. Declarer was not making more than 10 tricks without the subsequent revokes and hence I also make it 7Hxx-3.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2017-September-19, 14:07, said:

I would have interpreted "more" in that context as being compared to the result after the automatic penalties. Declarer was not making more than 10 tricks without the subsequent revokes and hence I also make it 7Hxx-3.

I agree it is compared to the result after the automatic penalties, but at that time, and comparing like with like. The purpose of Law 64C2a is to stop the defenders or declarer gaining from a second revoke in the same suit. In the original case that triggered the change, a player gained by repeating a revoke and this was wrongly handled by an eminent AC in Poznan.

If the defenders had followed to the third spade, and no further revokes had occurred, the declarer would have made 9 tricks, two spades and three clubs plus four tricks for the original two revokes. When they ruffed, declarer could only make 8 tricks, one spade, three clubs and four tricks for the original revokes, so there is a further one-trick transfer, for the second revoke in the same suit. If that had been the end of the story, you should make a five-trick transfer, four for the original two revokes and one for the third revoke in spades (the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred). Total transfers if no more revokes: five tricks

When we move to the fourth spade ruff, if that revoke had not occurred, and no subsequent revoke had occurred at all, declarer would have made 10 tricks, two spades, three clubs, four tricks for the initial revokes and one trick for the second revoke which gained and for which they have already been punished rectified. Ruffing reduced that number to 9, in that declarer can now only make one spade, three clubs and the same five tricks for the revokes. Therefore one more trick is transferred (the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred). Total transfers if no more revokes: six tricks

Let us look at the fifth spade. At that point declarer was making eleven tricks, two spades, three clubs, four tricks for the original revokes plus two tricks for each of the revokes in the same suit which gained. When the defenders revoked declarer could only make one spade, three clubs and six tricks for the revokes to date including those that restored equity. So again a one trick transfer is made as the revoke on trick five has gained. Total transfers if no more revokes: seven tricks

We move on to the sixth spade. This, curiously, did not gain, as declarer can only make one spade and three clubs with or without the revoke. The transfers to date are the automatic four tricks for the first revokes plus the three tricks for the revokes that gained, a total of 11. Total transfers if no more revokes: seven tricks

We move on to the seventh spade. This revoke does gain. At that point declarer was making one spade, three clubs, four tricks for the original revokes and three more tricks for the revokes in the same suit that gained, a total of 11. When the defence ruffed it the declarer could no longer make a spade, and had just 10 tricks, three clubs, four tricks for the original revokes and three more tricks for the revokes in the same suit that gained. So the defence gained a trick again and there is a further one trick transfer, bringing the total number of tricks transferred to eight, four for the first revokes and four for the revokes in the same suit that gained. Total transfers if no more revokes: eight tricks

We move on to the eighth spade. That was legally ruffed high by West. He had no spades at that time, so that was not a revoke. Total transfers if no more revokes: eight tricks

The first club and second club were initial revokes in the same suit and each incur an automatic two-trick penalty each. This is more than sufficient to restore equity. Total transfers if no more revokes: twelve tricks.

The third club was ruffed by East and was the second revoke in the same suit. If East had followed declarer would have made two tricks. Declarer made two tricks anyway so there was no damage. Total transfers if no more revokes: twelve tricks.

The fourth club was a revoke at trick 12 and there is no rectification for this. It is corrected and declarer makes the last two tricks anyway.

After correction of trick 12, trick 13 would be won by dummy with the seven of hearts. The defence has made 11 tricks, and 12 tricks are due to be transferred. Only tricks won can be transferred so the result is 7Hxx=.

[dcrc2]

lamford, on 2017-September-20, 05:31, said:

When we move to the fourth spade ruff, if that revoke had not occurred, and no subsequent revoke had occurred at all, declarer would have made 10 tricks, two spades, three clubs, four tricks for the initial revokes and one trick for the second revoke which gained and for which they have already been punished rectified.

I think this is where the argument goes wrong.

Yes, let's suppose that the fourth revoke did not occur. Then declarer would have made 2 spades and 3 clubs, and the director would be called.

The director has to consider whether an adjustment is required for the third revoke. The director would do the following calculation:

Number of tricks actually made by declarer = 5 (plus 4 for the two penalties)
Number of tricks which would have been made without the third revoke = 5 (plus 4 for the two penalties)

Therefore the director would determine that declarer had not been damaged by the third revoke.

Basically the issue is that while the defenders could have gained by revoking at trick three, they then gave that trick straight back by returning a spade, meaning that declarer was not actually damaged. Therefore, when analysing the situation before the fourth revoke, there should be no adjustment included for that third revoke.

[Edit: After thinking about it some more, I'm unsure whether this is really the main problem with the argument. But it's certainly the first place where it is clear something has gone awry.]

[lamford]

dcrc2, on 2017-September-22, 03:54, said:

Basically the issue is that while the defenders could have gained by revoking at trick three, they then gave that trick straight back by returning a spade, meaning that declarer was not actually damaged. Therefore, when analysing the situation before the fourth revoke, there should be no adjustment included for that third revoke.

The fallacy of this argument is that the defence gained a trick by a second revoke in the same suit but then lost it by poor play in that a club exit (or drawing the trump and then exiting with a club) saved a trick. The chronology was as follows:

a) the third spade ruff gained a trick, reducing declarer from five tricks to four tricks
b) the spade exit by the person who had just ruffed a spade elevated declarer from four tricks to five tricks.
c) ruffing this reduced declarer again from five tricks to four tricks.

Declarer was damaged by the third and also by three of the later revokes, but recovered the damage by the excellent strategy (both by RR and SB) of not drawing attention to the irregularity so that the opponents would establish those other revokes and also misdefend.

So, declarer gets redress for a), and still gets the benefit of the poor defence and the total transfer for all the revokes is 12 tricks, 8 automatic and 4 for second revokes that gained (at the time). Three mis-defences in between the four additional revokes all cost a trick, but declarer still gets the additional benefit of those, of course, just as he benefited from West never ruffing with the six of hearts. Your argument is similar to the wrong one propounded in the Poznan Revoke Ruling.

[dcrc2]

I'll continue to address the simpler example of where the fourth revoke didn't happen, allowing declarer to win two spades and three clubs. This is the first point of disagreement and adding yet more revokes just confuses things.

Law 64C2(a) says
"the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred."

Applying this to the third revoke, this Law is telling us to compare two results:
- The actual number of tricks made at the table.
- The number of tricks which would likely have been made if the third revoke did not occur.

The actual result was that declarer made two spades and three clubs, plus four tricks* for revoke penalties, making 9.
If the third revoke did not occur, declarer would have made two spades and three clubs, plus four tricks for revoke penalties, making 9.

Therefore there is no adjustment under Law 64C2(a).

You seem to want to consider a third scenario, whereby the revoke takes place, but the subsequent play differs from what happened at the table. But nowhere in Law 64 does it suggest that you should be considering this.

*(Perhaps it's unclear whether the calculation should include the tricks transferred for the first two revokes, but it clearly makes no difference because the number transferred is the same in both cases.)

[lamford]

dcrc2, on 2017-September-22, 09:19, said:

I'll continue to address the simpler example of where the fourth revoke didn't happen, allowing declarer to win two spades and three clubs. This is the first point of disagreement and adding yet more revokes just confuses things.

I agree. I shall address that only. The actual number of tricks made at the table was two. Tricks 12 and 13 were won by declarer. If the third revoke had not occurred, and there had been no more revokes, declarer would have made five tricks, two spades and three clubs. After the third revoke occurred, declarer could only make four tricks, one spade and three clubs. Therefore one trick is transferred, in addition to the eight automatic ones, for the second revoke in the same suit which gained. We deal with other revokes similarly. Is there an automatic transfer? Is that transfer enough? If there is no automatic transfer, did the second revoke in the same suit gain? The last has to be an equity comparison of immediately before the (third) revoke and immediately after, not looking on to what happened later. Three revokes in the same suit later gained tricks, but only a total of 11 can be transferred.

Another way of thinking of it, a quite simple one, is the following:
a) How many tricks did declarer make? Two (plus any automatic transfers)
b) How many tricks would he have made if there had not been the second revokes in the same suit? Five (plus any automatic transfers)
c) How many tricks are automatically transferred for the first revokes? Eight

Therefore declarer gets 2+3+8 =13

[barmar]

You're still insisting on transfering tricks, but the law says nothing about transfering tricks for subsequent revokes in the same suit. It says you determine what the likely result would have been had the revokes not occurred in the first place.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2017-September-25, 08:44, said:

You're still insisting on transfering tricks, but the law says nothing about transfering tricks for subsequent revokes in the same suit.

+1