[pran]

axman, on 2018-October-02, 12:41, said:

Actually, in 1933 this provision was present:

LAW No.39

Inquiries Regarding Possible Revoke

(a) Any player may question any other player as to whether his lead or play constitutes a revoke (except that Dummy may question only De­clarer), but the question or the answer made thereto shall not be deemed to have corrected a revoke otherwise established.
(b) Either adversary or Declarer (as the case may be) may demand that a correct card be substituted for the revoking card, in which case the offender is subject to the penalty for a corrected revoke, but not to the penalty for an established revoke.

It thus was possible to require the revoke to be corrected. what might be interesting is the effect of not correcting the revoke as required.... since not doing so would be an additional revoke:

LAW No.38

Revoke Penalties

(a) Corrected revoke by an adversary.
Penalty: Declarer may elect (1) to treat the card played in error as exposed, or (2) to require the offender to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led.
(b) Corrected revoke by Declarer.
Penalty: If the left-hand adversary has played after the revoke, he may require Declarer to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led; no penalty if the left-hand adversary has not played.
© Revoke by Dummy, whether corrected or established. No penalty.
(d) Established revoke by Declarer or an adversary.
Penalty: For the first revoke, two tricks won by the revoking side are surrendered to the other side; ‘for each subsequent revoke by the same side, one trick is so surrendered, except that no transfer of tricks shall include any trick won before the first revoke occurred, nor any trick transferred from the other side in payment of a previous revoke. Penalty tricks are scored exactly as though won in play.

I see nothing in law 38 (or any other of the 1933 laws of duplicate contract bridge) that provided for extra compensation in case the rectification provided for an established revoke turned out insufficient to fully compensate for the damage caused to a non-offending side.

The laws of 1933 were strictly speaking applicable only within USA. The first international laws on contract bridge (rubber as well as duplicate) were agreed upon and made applicable world-wide in 1936. It appears to me that the same deficiency in revoke penalties was still present after 1936.

[axman]

pran, on 2018-October-02, 15:14, said:

I see nothing in law 38 (or any other of the 1933 laws of duplicate contract bridge) that provided for extra compensation in case the rectification provided for an established revoke turned out insufficient to fully compensate for the damage caused to a non-offending side.

The laws of 1933 were strictly speaking applicable only within USA. The first international laws on contract bridge (rubber as well as duplicate) were agreed upon and made applicable world-wide in 1936. It appears to me that the same deficiency in revoke penalties was still present after 1936.

L48
(6) A player should not purposely incur a penalty, even though willing to pay it. If a player commits an offense against the ethics or proprieties of the game, and either opponent feels that the interests of his side are prejudiced thereby, he may request a Neutral Score under the provisions of Law No. 22.
For intentional or repeated violation, the committee may disqualify or bar offenders from further play, and adjust the score in whatever way it considers equitable.

[pran]

axman, on 2018-October-03, 12:25, said:

L48
(6) A player should not purposely incur a penalty, even though willing to pay it. If a player commits an offense against the ethics or proprieties of the game, and either opponent feels that the interests of his side are prejudiced thereby, he may request a Neutral Score under the provisions of Law No. 22.
For intentional or repeated violation, the committee may disqualify or bar offenders from further play, and adjust the score in whatever way it considers equitable.

Neutral score was what we know as artificial adjusted score and could be granted by the Director when he considered a board unplayable for whatever reason.
A damaged side could then (usually) choose between the provided penalty (if any) for an irregularity and have the board void with a neutral score (when granted).

There was no provision in Law 22 for using neutral score to compensate for instance insufficient revoke compensation similar to what we have in Law 64C.

[axman]

pran, on 2018-October-04, 01:23, said:

Neutral score was what we know as artificial adjusted score and could be granted by the Director when he considered a board unplayable for whatever reason.
A damaged side could then (usually) choose between the provided penalty (if any) for an irregularity and have the board void with a neutral score (when granted).

There was no provision in Law 22 for using neutral score to compensate for instance insufficient revoke compensation similar to what we have in Law 64C.

neutral score was 70%-30%

[pran]

axman, on 2018-October-04, 10:29, said:

neutral score was 70%-30%

"Neutral score" was always 50%-50%, but there was also "Neutral score with penalty" where the penalty was 10%, 20% or 25% depending on the nature of the irregularity. (Individual play and team play had slightly different rates)

For a deliberate violation of law the penalty was actually 25% (resulting in a "neutral score with penalty" of 75% - 25%.

However, for an accidental/unintended revoke the laws included no provision of Neutral score at all.

(For the record: My reference is Alfred M Gruenther "Duplicate Contract Complete" New York March 1933)