[lamford]

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. It says you determine what the likely result would have been had the revokes not occurred in the first place.

I am adjusting the score by "awarding" declarer a further trick for the second revoke in the same suit. The law 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". It makes no mention of the first revokes in each suit; they are already covered automatically. Let us say that only the first three revokes occurred. After that the defence exited with a club and declarer made four tricks, one spade and three clubs. Declarer gets the four automatic tricks transferred and therefore makes 8 tricks and is 5 off. The TD now examines the third revoke and sees how many tricks declarer would have made if it had not occurred. He sees that declarer had, at that point, two spades and three clubs, and should make five tricks, plus four for the automatic revokes, and is therefore only four off. The TD adjusts the score from -2800 to -2200.

"Adjusting the score for the second revoke in the same suit" is, I think, the correct terminology. In this case, declarer makes 2 tricks and gets 8 tricks transferred automatically for the first revokes by each side in each black suit. That is 10 tricks. If one or more of the second revokes in the same suit had not occurred, declarer would have made 5 tricks and still had 8 tricks transferred automatically for the first revokes. Therefore the TD adjusts the score from 7Hxx-3 to 7Hxx= because the third, fourth and fifth revokes each gained a trick for the defence. As did the seventh revoke, but that is overkill!

Following your approach, declarer would have likely (well almost certainly) have made 5 tricks if the second revokes had not occurred. He made two. You think he is 3 off, as he gets 8 tricks automatically for the first revokes. Therefore we adjust the score as though he did make five tricks. I don't see the problem, and think this does indeed belong in simple rulings.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-September-27, 05:27, said:

Therefore the TD adjusts the score from 7Hxx-3 to 7Hxx= because the third, fourth and fifth revokes each gained a trick for the defence. As did the seventh revoke, but that is overkill!

I don't think you adjust for each of them individually. You try to figure out what the final result would have been if none of them had occurred at all. Would he have done better than the result after the automatic transfer of 8 tricks? No. So no adjustment beyond that.

He doesn't get the 8 trick transfer PLUS additional adjustments of subsequent revokes.

Notice that this particular law is in the section about "Redress for damage". It's intended to handle the cases where the automatic transfer doesn't suffice. If the automatic transfer is already more than sufficient, the NOS doesn't get more.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-27, 09:03, said:

I don't think you adjust for each of them individually. You try to figure out what the final result would have been if none of them had occurred at all. Would he have done better than the result after the automatic transfer of 8 tricks? No. So no adjustment beyond that.

He doesn't get the 8 trick transfer PLUS additional adjustments of subsequent revokes.

Notice that this particular law is in the section about "Redress for damage". It's intended to handle the cases where the automatic transfer doesn't suffice. If the automatic transfer is already more than sufficient, the NOS doesn't get more.

Your reasoning is as flawed as that of the eminent panel in Poznan which failed to overturn the wrong ruling when a second revoke in the same suit gained. Ton Kooijman was reportedly tearing his hair out over that error in interpreting the restoration of equity. The equity restoration for the second revoke in the same suit is compared with it not happening. A player gained by repeating the revoke. He was already subject to a four trick transfer, and ruffing the third spade increased the penalty from 2200 to 2800. This is clearly not restoring equity and the director has to adjust the score.

Are you saying that if the four revokes happened at tricks one to four, and now declarer could claim, you would allow the opponents to reduce the number of tricks from 13 to 10 by further revokes? Hogwash.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-September-27, 11:09, said:

Are you saying that if the four revokes happened at tricks one to four, and now declarer could claim, you would allow the opponents to reduce the number of tricks from 13 to 10 by further revokes? Hogwash.

It's never reduced below what declarer gets from the automatic transfers for the initial revokes.

For the initial revokes, the law allows the NOS to get tricks they could never get normally. For subsequent revokes by the same player in the same suit, it doesn't. And there's also the law that says that if the automatic transfers are not sufficient to restore equity, you adjust further. So the NOS should never be able to lose extra tricks due to a revoke.

I'm not sure what the rationale for distinguishing initial and subsequent revokes is, but it's been in the Laws at least since the 1997 edition. The only thing that changed in the 2017 edition is splitting 64C into two clauses, one for restoring equity in general, and another for the special case of multiple revokes by the same player in the same suit. But the objective seems to be the same in both.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-September-28, 08:46, said:

The only thing that changed in the 2017 edition is splitting 64C into two clauses, one for restoring equity in general, and another for the special case of multiple revokes by the same player in the same suit. But the objective seems to be the same in both.

Indeed. Equity is restored in general, so revokes can never gain, and declarer cannot gain by the first revoke, where the penalty is insufficient. However, the purpose of the new law is to correct the Poznan ruling so that the defenders who are already due to pay a penalty for a revoke, cannot effectively reduce that penalty by a second "free" revoke.