[lamford]

---

I had the pleasure of playing in The Poznan Pig's Ear Pairs last night, sponsored by Polish Pork Produce. It was an event for unqualified directors and other invited players, and much of the discussion as we gathered was about RRR - the Riccardi Revoke Ruling. There was a rumour that some of the novitiate from the Catholic Directing Monastery in Warsaw would deliberately revoke to test out the Beijing minute, but they assured me that this was not the case.

On the above hand, South, who bore a remarkable resemblance to the Rueful Rabbit, tried a "gambling 3NT" on the first round - he had seen Cronier try it from the bulletin, and he stood it when it was doubled, by West, who had opened a constructive weak two in spades. RR actually had a club with the king of spades, but noticed it when West led the queen of spades. Unfortunately, he also then replaced the king of spades among his clubs.

West, an Armenian visitor, was surprised when South discarded a small club, especially as his partner showed an even number. Nevertheless he continued with the jack of spades, on which North and South discarded clubs, and then he played the ten of spades, on which North and South threw hearts. West, confident that his partner, who closely resembled the Secretary Bird, would overtake and play one back, continued with the nine of spades. RR threw a diamond from dummy, and was about to throw another club from hand, when he discovered the king of spades, which he originally knew he had, lurking among the clubs. RR was used to calling the TD for his many infractions and did so, but OO, standing in as the chief TD, asked that play continue, and none of the three revokes could be corrected, but on this trick RR could - indeed must - win it with the king of spades.

Somewhat flustered, the Rabbit cashed the ace of diamonds, and was disappointed to note that they broke 4-0 (he had forgotten about his earlier diamond discard from dummy). But he did work out to cross to dummy with the ace of hearts and take the "marked" diamond finesse. He ran all the diamonds, and when East threw all his hearts, RR tried to throw him in with the ten of hearts to lead into the A10 of clubs, only to find that it held the trick, and he made 10 tricks.

Oscar the Owl had the Beijing minute to hand, and could see that the equity before the first revoke was 7 tricks, and that dropped to 6 tricks for trick 2 and 3. As these were subsequent revokes in the same suit, and the offender did not win the trick, and the second and third revokes did not increase the declarer's equity - however one read the Beijing minute - there was no further adjustment, and there was thus only one trick deducted from the 10 that RR had made.

Oscar commented "Unusual hand; it needs 3 revokes, a miscount in diamonds and a Vienna Coup to make 3NT", but SB, East, was unhappy. He cited Law 23 verbatim and argued that RR could have known that revoking three times would rectify the count for the squeeze against himself, and assist in unblocking the diamonds. North, who looked a little like the Hideous Hog, and was on a sponsor's invite, testing out the free sausages, disagreed: "The last time there was a blockage in the toilets downstairs, RR did not notice it, which is part of the reason he gets the sobriquet 'Rueful'", he commented. "And in any case, should not West have cashed the ace of spades at trick 4, on which his partner would know to unblock the king if he had it? To not guard against South revoking three times was an error, and with the Rabbit as South, it would be classed as a SEWOG", he claimed. "And as for the idea that RR could have been aware of anything, that concept is ludicrous."

Oscar, the TD, did not totally agree with this, but was still wondering whether RR "could have been aware" his multiple infractions could benefit him. And whether it was relevant what ability RR had. He thought the purpose of Law 23 was to punish any infraction which the most perspicacious of players could have been aware might benefit them. How would you rule?

[the hog]

Love it. Great story.

[blackshoe]

Send them all back to the Griffins. Without their supper.

[bixby]

The story is excellent, but unfortunately I think the construction is flawed. If South just takes the first trick with the SK, doesn't he have nine tricks? The diamonds are not blocked. South cashes the Ace, discovers the 0-3 split, crosses to the HA, and leads a diamond. If East covers, South wins with the King, takes the next trick with a diamond in dummy, and then crosses back to the DQ to cash the remaining diamonds. The CA is his ninth trick. And if East refuses to cover the second diamond, South plays low in hand and then simply cashes the remaining diamonds, as the KQ take care of dummy's two diamonds.

To address what I take to be the point of the post, let's imagine that the diamonds were blocked and that South, if he took the first trick with the SK, would have only seven tricks. In that case I think the ruling is clearly that South is down two. The Director is required to restore equity, as the revoke penalty doesn't adequately compensate E/W for South's first revoke. Even under the Beijing minute, whatever happens as a result of the second and third revokes (and again, the whole thing is somewhat counterfactual given that the diamonds aren't really blocked), South can't improve the result by revoking again.

[lamford]

bixby, on 2011-June-25, 08:09, said:

The story is excellent, but unfortunately I think the construction is flawed. If South just takes the first trick with the SK, doesn't he have nine tricks? The diamonds are not blocked. South cashes the Ace, discovers the 0-3 split, crosses to the HA, and leads a diamond. If East covers, South wins with the King, takes the next trick with a diamond in dummy, and then crosses back to the DQ to cash the remaining diamonds. The CA is his ninth trick. And if East refuses to cover the second diamond, South plays low in hand and then simply cashes the remaining diamonds, as the KQ take care of dummy's two diamonds.

To address what I take to be the point of the post, let's imagine that the diamonds were blocked and that South, if he took the first trick with the SK, would have only seven tricks. In that case I think the ruling is clearly that South is down two. The Director is required to restore equity, as the revoke penalty doesn't adequately compensate E/W for South's first revoke. Even under the Beijing minute, whatever happens as a result of the second and third revokes (and again, the whole thing is somewhat counterfactual given that the diamonds aren't really blocked), South can't improve the result by revoking again.

You are right. On checking the hand record I find an error in the diagram which has now been corrected so that the diamonds were indeed blocked. The problem with your ruling is that none of the three revokes gained. It was trick four when West underled his ace of spades again and South played legally where he gained three tricks, elevating his equity to nine tricks net. But the TD cannot adjust for a non-infraction. So now the TD has to decide whether to apply L23.

[ahydra]

Well unfortunately with your new layout there's no "marked diamond finesse" as in the story And South only needs to revoke once, grabbing the second spade trick with the KS and throwing a diamond from North.

Surely the only fair result is to award down 2 since no other outcome is (sensibly) possible after South wins the first trick with the KS. I've always felt the "transfer X tricks based on whether you won the revoke trick / any subsequent tricks" rule is somewhat artificial.

What about East-West - is their failure to reach 4S on the 11-card fit not an SEWoG? For instance, at the favourable vulnerability most Wests would open 4S. Though I guess this point is moot if the result is adjusted to 3NTX-2, since 500 > 450.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2011-June-25, 11:48, said:

Well unfortunately with your new layout there's no "marked diamond finesse" as in the story And South only needs to revoke once, grabbing the second spade trick with the KS and throwing a diamond from North.

Surely the only fair result is to award down 2 since no other outcome is (sensibly) possible after South wins the first trick with the KS. I've always felt the "transfer X tricks based on whether you won the revoke trick / any subsequent tricks" rule is somewhat artificial.

What about East-West - is their failure to reach 4S on the 11-card fit not an SEWoG? For instance, at the favourable vulnerability most Wests would open 4S. Though I guess this point is moot if the result is adjusted to 3NTX-2, since 500 > 450.

ahydra

No, if RR wins the second spade with the king discarding a diamond from dummy he will only make 8 tricks; 9 actual tricks less one for the revoke. He needs to revoke three times to rectify the count, and he needs to cross to dummy to take a spurious diamond finesse or the squeeze does not operate. The wording of the minute is the equity after the first revoke, and this is only 6 tricks. In summary, the total number of tricks after the opening lead is 8, after the first revoke 6, after the second revoke still 6 and after the third revoke 6. The legal play at trick four of not revoking and discarding a diamond from dummy elevated the equity to 9 tricks. But it is only the gains or losses of the second and third revokes which can be addressed. Otherwise, you would argue that declarer can never recover from an initial revoke by, for example, playing a bunny squeeze in the ending. No, the decision as far as the revokes go has to be 9 tricks. But I would indeed adjust to 7, the equity if declarer had not revoked at all, but only under L23, in that he could have been aware that the three revokes would gain. Actually I am not sure about that as it was not the revokes which gained, but the lead at trick four. And the fact that RR crossed to dummy to take a "marked finesse" was his thinking. He would not notice he did not have the 9. And he was correct, if he does not take the "marked finesse" he goes down. And there was no endplay either; that was just the rabbit's thinking.

[dcrc2]

Six tricks, applying Law 64C to the third revoke.

Without the third revoke, declarer would have made six tricks (due to the Law 64A penalty for the first revoke). Because of the third revoke, he made nine. Sure the defenders could have held him to six tricks even after the third revoke, but their failure to do so was not SEWoG so this does not deny them redress.

Nice construction, though

[lamford]

dcrc2, on 2011-June-25, 16:48, said:

Six tricks, applying Law 64C to the third revoke.

Without the third revoke, declarer would have made six tricks (due to the Law 64A penalty for the first revoke). Because of the third revoke, he made nine. Sure the defenders could have held him to six tricks even after the third revoke, but their failure to do so was not SEWoG so this does not deny them redress.

Nice construction, though

But the Beijing minute states that the penalty for subsequent revokes is based on the equity after the first revoke, and that was six tricks also, so there is no 64C adjustment for the second or third revokes.

[blackshoe]

Huh? If he made nine tricks after the third revoke, when equity was six, then surely we use 64C to adjust from making nine to making six?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-26, 04:25, said:

Huh? If he made nine tricks after the third revoke, when equity was six, then surely we use 64C to adjust from making nine to making six?

No, because under the minute we compare the change in equity after the second and third revokes with the equity after the first revoke. Both are six tricks. The equity after the lead to trick four went up from 6 to 10 (net 9) tricks, but this was not as a result of the second and third revokes.

[blackshoe]

No? Why not?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-26, 16:29, said:

No? Why not?

Because declarer could still only make six tricks after the second and third revokes; it needs a fourth underlead of the ace of spades to allow him to make nine tricks; and it was playing legally on the fourth trick that gained, not the previous revokes. West could cash seven spade tricks at tricks two, three and four. Had he done so, declarer would have made six, six and six tricks. In all cases with a one-trick penalty. We are concerned with the change in equity caused by the revokes, according to the Beijing minute. Now we might decide the Beijing minute is faulty, but that has already been agreed by most people.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, it seems really fair to allow declarer to deceive the defense through three revokes, causing them to miss defend, and to then give declarer nine tricks.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-26, 17:05, said:

Yeah, it seems really fair to allow declarer to deceive the defense through three revokes, causing them to miss defend, and to then give declarer nine tricks.

No it does seem unfair, so I think one has to rule that the Rabbit "could have been aware" that while the three revokes did not gain directly, that he could have gained later in the play. I would rule seven tricks I think, which is what the Rabbit would have made if he had not revoked at all. So, L23 saves us here.