[jillybean]

You are called to the table, Declarer is playing in 2H.
7 tricks have been played, on tricks 4,5,&6 declarer was drawing trump, Declarer's LHO has been pitching clubs.
Declarer leads a spade on trick 7 and LHO ruffs, LHO has another heart in their hand, in with their diamonds.

[sfi]

Unless I'm missing something, have them complete the hand. Then transfer one trick to the declaring side at the end of play and look to see whether the revokes cost declarer more than one trick.

Only the first established revoke incurs an automatic trick penalty (64B2).

[jillybean]

To start, there's the 2 heart trumps that were not played while declarer was drawing Trump.
We have 3 club cards discarded, correct play would have seen one card discarded.
At the end of the hand, a minimum of 2 tricks (trumps) must go back to declarer but as far as reconstructing the rest of the hand how do you do that when the offending player has 4 cards played illegally and illegally gained the lead twice?

Is this resolved with A+ A- ?

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-June-22, 04:17, said:

To start, there's the 2 heart trumps that were not played while declarer was drawing Trump.
We have 3 club cards discarded, correct play would have seen one card discarded.
At the end of the hand, a minimum of 2 tricks (trumps) must go back to declarer [...]

These are established revokes. Since the defender did not win the trick on which they first revoked, one trick will be transferred to the declaring side at the conclusion of the hand since the defence wins a subsequent trick. (64A1)

The second and third revokes in hearts do not attract additional automatic trick penalties - it's only one trick total at the end of the hand. (64B2)

Quote

[...] but as far as reconstructing the rest of the hand how do you do that when the offending player has 4 cards played illegally and illegally gained the lead twice?

The director looks to reconstruct the hand without any of the revokes - how many tricks would declarer have won if the defence had followed suit. The director also needs to consider what would have happened if only the first revoke had happened, and then what would have happened if only the first two revokes had happened. Sometimes it's a later revoke that really helps the defence.

Much of the time doing this is straightforward, but even if it isn't that's part of what the director is expected to do.

Quote

Is this resolved with A+ A- ?

Not unless the director really cannot work out what would have likely happened without the revokes, and awarding A+/A- should be the director's last resort.

[mycroft]

One strange bit - yes, there is no automatic trick adjustment for the second revoke by the same player in the same suit, but equity is based not on the hand trick 1, but declarer's equity at the time of the second revoke. That is, if they hadn't revoked the second time, we would award the one trick from the first revoke, and now would they have done better with that trick transfer without the second revoke?

It's a rare case, but it's important to get right.

[jillybean]

If the prescribed one or two trick restoration to the non offender does not restore equity then the Director attempts to reconstruct the hand without the revoke(s).
Does this reconstruction involve only piecing the hand back together involving legal play already made, or obvious play. In the case of a revoke involving trump, Declarer, having assumed one opponent has all the trumps is not required to continue playing trump in a reconstruction but the Director does not "play" the hand out. If there is any choice or doubt to the play then you would have to say the board is unable to be restored and award an artificial adjusted score?

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-June-22, 09:05, said:

It's a rare case, but it's important to get right.

I think this is a black hole best tended to by relying on the 'NOS' to assert a claim of what they would do different but for.... Having been given that assertion then scrutinize the validity of the assertion giving deference to all matters that are legitimately plausible in even the smallest way over objections by the OS- and award the assertion or give reasoning for why the award is less. Such may or not be to the greatest advantage to the NOS score, yet it resolves the hand relative to the skills of the players (even though via a second pass** rather than the first pass). The advantage such as may be is avoiding a search for the impossible to find holy grail.

** well, it would be expected that having seen the cards the NOS would be in the position of making their assertion to their best advantage that their skill can muster. In light that there is the presumption that the hand will be played at the speed of a few seconds per turn, the second time around suggests that it is (abundantly) generous to the NOS that they do not get unlimited time to contemplate their do over and that they do not get a third time around.

[mycroft]

Usually, the issue is either:

• "waited until it was good to take it" blocking the suit or transportation, or
  
• "suit (usually trumps) breaks X-Y, need to find a different line of play" that doesn't work as well

The first one is obvious; usually, declarer will make it *very clear* if the second applies. In fact, she'll be complaining about it *before* you even get to the point where you mention the trick transfer.

I disagree with "put the NOS up to the challenge" in general because once the hand's over, it's *over*, and getting back into that mindset is hard, and leads to misplays that they absolutely wouldn't have made at the table. Anybody who's tried to do a bidding poll knows this; anyone who has attempted to lead an offender to their comparative call, especially in the auction 1m-(1♠)-1♥, knows this. Whether we should put the offenders into that trap, it's unfair to punish the NOS that way, even if the director sees a line obvious to him that the Flight C declarer would "never find". This feels like "how dare you give me, a Flight A player, a worse score than *that player* would ever find at the table, just because I did something wrong?" Not saying that Axman would ever say that; he really does want to ensure a fair result. But others *do*, and definitely would prefer if the Laws were the way axman wants (partly because the C players, confused enough with the whole TD thing, would misplay; partly because after the hand, especially knowing in advance that they will be asked, the stronger player definitely *would* find the "obvious" double-dummy line, and also the reasoning why it is obvious).

I'm not saying double-dummy; neither do the laws. I'm saying "the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated" (64C1).

My comment on "it's rare, but it matters" about the *second and subsequent* revokes is 64C2a, by the way.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-June-22, 10:35, said:

I disagree with "put the NOS up to the challenge" in general because once the hand's over, it's *over*, and getting back into that mindset is hard, and leads to misplays that they absolutely wouldn't have made at the table. ... Whether we should put the offenders into that trap, it's unfair to punish the NOS that way,

I concur that it is unfair for the law to create it. This is the reason that the WBF is wrong to not subject every established revoke to trick penalti(es); as well as creating this comparable call thing and a host of other unfairnesses upon... both sides. These questions can only be resolved by Sally, Dick, Jane, and Harry. Not TDs, not committees, not pundits because only Sally, Dick, Jane, and Harry have the answers and it is their answers that count.

This post has been edited by axman: 2023-June-23, 05:36

[mycroft]

You want "2 minutes for cross-checking", I get it. Fixed penalties, no judgement, no "attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalize".

The difference is that in hockey, there are 4 officials watching one game - 12 players. Current desired director count in the ACBL is about 1 per 19 tables; 76 players. So we're not going to catch every infraction; we're not going to punish every infraction; now the punishment is now dependent on the opponents knowing the law well enough to call. With "try to restore what would have happened at the table", it doesn't punish the people who don't know how many infractions their opponents inflict on them every game as much. It also doesn't trigger calls of "Bridge Lawyer" quite as much.

Oh, and I'm sure that everybody knows their sport's equivalent of "who's the bastard in the black"(*)/"How could you miss that one"?

But, seriously, penalizing revokes at trick 12? Penalizing putting a heart in with your diamonds three times as much if they run the hearts than if they just take the A? And while I am uncomfortable with what we have now, returning to "guess 1NT or 3NT whenever you bid wrong, get a top if you're right" is not in my wheelhouse. But maybe what is wanted is "you did something wrong, we get a good score." - so we apply a punishment (like automatic trick adjustment) to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. I mean, we can go with that. But see above.

And misbids (as opposed to misexplanations)? Good luck getting any game if that's the case (but it's what you'd have to do if you take director's judgement away from law 75).

(*) Me. Literally, and kind of proud of it. Born bar sinister (regularized 6 weeks later), and frequently (and currently) dresses all in black, especially when trying to be business-like. But still.