[indp]

Dummy has two trumps and a side loser in the suit led at trick 11. After dummy follows suit declarer ruffs with the only remaining trump. This however is a revooke which is subsequently established. The laws mandate a two trick adjustment despite the fact that it was literally impossible for the defense to win two tricks at the point of the infraction. Jeff Rubens has promoted the idea of equity adjustment for revokes and this seems to be a clear supporting case.

[blackshoe]

It's not about equity. It's about trying to convince players to be more careful not to revoke.

[1eyedjack]

I think that it is not about either of the aforementioned issues. It is about saving the director the time and effort of being called upon to establish an equitable result by providing a convenient and easy to apply formula without the discretion to vary it (otherwise than by increasing the penalty to protect the non-offending side should it be required).

As mentioned it is not about restoring equity, which clearly it does not.

However were it about providing an incentive to comply with the laws, there would be more examples in the laws of similar prescribed adjustments of specific amounts for breaches. In my experience most of the laws, with this notable exception, do attempt to restore equity, and I can think of no political reason why this particular breach should be singled out for "educational penalty" treatment.

Revokes are accidental. No honest player deliberately revokes, and no dis-honest player can seriously expect to benefit from doing so. There are more effective ways to cheat than not to follow suit when it will become apparent that you have not done so in just a few cards time. Accordingly, no player will be sitting there thinking "perhaps I should revoke here. But then again, OMG there is a 2 trick penalty so perhaps I had better not". To apply the penalty as an incentive to induce the player to add that second sentence to his thought process is absurd. To be effective it would require that he first considers the first sentence, upon which it would be sufficient for his second sentence to read "But then again, that would just be wrong, so perhaps I had better not".

The only other justification that I can think of is to provide certainty of outcome with a minimum of involvement.

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2011-May-18, 00:00, said:

However were it about providing an incentive to comply with the laws, there would be more examples in the laws of similar prescribed adjustments of specific amounts for breaches.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

1eyedjack, on 2011-May-18, 00:00, said:

In my experience most of the laws, with this notable exception, do attempt to restore equity, and I can think of no political reason why this particular breach should be singled out for "educational penalty" treatment.

Of course. The laws even say that their purpose is primarily to restore equity. However, "primarily" does not mean "exclusively", and there are plenty of examples in the laws besides this one.

1eyedjack, on 2011-May-18, 00:00, said:

Revokes are accidental. No honest player deliberately revokes, and no dis-honest player can seriously expect to benefit from doing so. There are more effective ways to cheat than not to follow suit when it will become apparent that you have not done so in just a few cards time. Accordingly, no player will be sitting there thinking "perhaps I should revoke here. But then again, OMG there is a 2 trick penalty so perhaps I had better not". To apply the penalty as an incentive to induce the player to add that second sentence to his thought process is absurd. To be effective it would require that he first considers the first sentence, upon which it would be sufficient for his second sentence to read "But then again, that would just be wrong, so perhaps I had better not".

Red herring. I did not suggest, nor do I intend to suggest, that the penalty is there to deter cheating. It's there to deter carelessness. Maybe it doesn't work very well, but that's why it's there.

[indp]

The Laws state that they are "primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged".
What we have here is clearly an excessive rectification. My point was that such situations could be dealt with if the director were to be given some discretion on the offender's side as they already have for the non-offenders.
"It's not about equity. It's about trying to convince players to be more careful not to revoke."
How about a two trick penalty for leading out of turn - that would make them more careful about who is declarer.
Do we really want to rule the game this way?

[gordontd]

indp, on 2011-May-17, 21:35, said:

Dummy has two trumps and a side loser in the suit led at trick 11. After dummy follows suit declarer ruffs with the only remaining trump. This however is a revooke which is subsequently established. The laws mandate a two trick adjustment despite the fact that it was literally impossible for the defense to win two tricks at the point of the infraction. Jeff Rubens has promoted the idea of equity adjustment for revokes and this seems to be a clear supporting case.

It's easy to find endless supporting cases if you think that revokes should be dealt with solely by equity adjustments.

[gordontd]

indp, on 2011-May-18, 02:26, said:

Do we really want to rule the game this way?

Do we really want to rule the game such that failure to follow it's most basic requirement (following suit) brings with it no sanction?

[1eyedjack]

gordontd, on 2011-May-18, 02:52, said:

Do we really want to rule the game such that failure to follow it's most basic requirement (following suit) brings with it no sanction?

Assuming that you expect the answer "no" to this question, then the logical conclusion is that a procedural penalty, over and above an equitable adjustment, should be applied to every transgression contained in the Laws.

[bluejak]

In clubs TDs generally deal with score queries, leads out of turn, calls out of turn, insufficient bids and revokes. It is important that these are simple enough and should be book rulings. The law-makers have already made a hash of insufficient bids. We do not want them to make a hash of revokes as well. Equity only will cause no end of time and trouble for TDs and players who are involved. Without an automatic penalty there will be more revokes because people will take less care. The game will be considerably worse off.

indp, on 2011-May-18, 02:26, said:

The Laws state that they are "primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged".

So they do, and people continually quote this as though the word primarily was replaced by solely. It isn't. The Laws are designed primarily for rectification but secondarily for punishment when necessary. Revokes require punishment: not punishing revokes spoils the game.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-May-18, 06:00, said:

In clubs TDs generally deal with score queries, leads out of turn, calls out of turn, insufficient bids and revokes. It is important that these are simple enough and should be book rulings.

And it's important to note the difference between revokes and the other 'standard' club issues. With leads of turn etc, the TD can apply a book ruling immediately when the infraction occurs - all players can see that it has happenned immediately (and if they don't call the TD then it's definitely their fault). With a revoke, however, the NOS can be completely unaware at the point it occurs, so the TD can't deal with it immediately. This is why there's a statutory penalty in tricks, to try and make revokes non-judgement rulings in the same class as the above.

[mycroft]

And frankly, they've gone farther down the chain since the last Laws revision, removing the (admittedly clunky) "2 tricks if the revoker won a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick". I did think that was going to lead to many more equity rulings; it hasn't in my experience. Well done.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind "established revoke = two tricks, or more to restore equity". But it's not what we have. Making a revoke a "non-punishable offence" has implications I don't want to have, however; so I like things the way they is.

[kevperk]

When I am directing, the two biggest complaints about the application of the laws concerning revokes are: trick(s) transferred from the offending side include ones that can not be lost by normal means(A of trumps, for example); and tricks transferred to the non offending side only restore equity. I have little sympathy for the first, but a lot of sympathy for the second. I don't understand the mindset of worrying about the offending side. I for one didn't like the last change, and hope no change takes place in the next laws revision, at least not TOWARDS achieving equity. Someone revokes, and gets a penalty. What is wrong with that?

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2011-May-18, 09:55, said:

Frankly, I wouldn't mind "established revoke = two tricks, or more to restore equity". But it's not what we have. Making a revoke a "non-punishable offence" has implications I don't want to have, however; so I like things the way they is.

In principle, I agree with mycroft.

• A revoke may the only way to make your contract. Its often a shot to nothing. Some revokes go unnoticed, especially at club level, so revokes lead to long term profit.
• Whether the revoke is deliberate or just careless, the effect is the same, If equity had its dictionary meaning instead of the peculiar Bridge law interpretation, the laws would prescribe some mild deterrent that players can understand. For example you lose the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks.
• Equity law guarantees a profit for most habitual law-breakers. Their victims may feel hard-done-by but tend to lick their wounds in silence. This ensures that directors get less hassle over rulings. The long-term danger, however, is that former non-offenders are tempted to change their habits.

[pran]

nige1, on 2011-May-18, 14:46, said:

In principle, I agree with mycroft.

• A revoke may the only way to make your contract. Its often a shot to nothing. Some revokes go unnoticed, especially at club level, so revokes lead to long term profit.
• Whether the revoke is deliberate or just careless, the effect is the same, If equity had its dictionary meaning instead of the peculiar Bridge law interpretation, the laws would prescribe some mild deterrent that players can understand. For example you lose the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks.
• Equity law guarantees a profit for most habitual law-breakers. Their victims may feel hard-done-by but tend to lick their wounds in silence. This ensures that directors get less hassle over rulings. The long-term danger, however, is that former non-offenders are tempted to change their habits.

Is this your theory or your experience?

If it is the latter I do indeed wonder in what environment you play bridge.

[nige1]

pran, on 2011-May-18, 15:02, said:

Is this your theory or your experience?

Both

pran, on 2011-May-18, 15:02, said:

If it is the latter I do indeed wonder in what environment you play bridge.

Most of my experience has been in EBU events.
I certainly don't think the EBU has more than its fair share of habitual law-breakers (e.g. people who routinely use UI, are economical with disclosure, and so on).
You can get a crude idea of the problem by ferretting out posts from other fora. I can't be bothered -- but but feel free to do your own research. It seems a pointless exercise, anyway, because it would be easy for the RAs (eg the EBU) to poll members. Obviously, my experience is not unique.
I blame the rules not the players. I don't know any cheats: Some players are careless. Some rationalize self-serving behaviour. ...
But for most of us, the rules are incomprehensible. If you don't understand a rule, its hard to follow.
BBF law fora show that directors experience the same difficulty.

[pran]

nige1, on 2011-May-18, 15:35, said:

Both
Most of my experience has been in EBU events.
I certainly don't think the EBU has more than its fair share of habitual law-breakers (e.g. people who routinely use UI, are economical with disclosure, and so on).
You can get a crude idea of the problem by ferretting out posts from other fora (I can't be bothered -- but but feel free to do your own research). It would be easy for the RAs (eg the EBU) to poll members. Anyway, my experience is not unique.
I blame the rules not the players. I don't know any cheats: Some players are careless. Some rationalize self-serving behaviour. ...
But for most of us, the rules are incomprehensible. If you don't understand a rule, it is hard to follow.
BBF law fora show that directors experience the same difficulty.

Well,
my own experience is mainly from Norwegian clubs including regional and national events over the last 30 plus years. Our community is so transparent that foul play will quickly be revealed, take for instance the infamous incident here a couple of years ago.

I sometimes wonder if the situation can be different in environments where bridge is played with high money at stakes?

[suprgrover]

indp, on 2011-May-17, 21:35, said:

Jeff Rubens has promoted the idea of equity adjustment for revokes and this seems to be a clear supporting case.

Jeff Rubens also complained not long ago (in a Bridge World editorial) that directors ought to make judgment rulings by the end of the round. The Bridge World is a great source for a lot of things, but as a source for practical suggestions on the Laws, it's lousy.