[han]

EW defend 5D doubled. They take the first two tricks with the ace and king of clubs. In the middle of the hand east wins a trick by ruffing a spade, but it later turns out that he had a spade, so this was a revoke. East later wins another trick with the ace of trumps.

What should the result be?

[gordontd]

5Dx=

[BunnyGo]

gordontd, on 2011-October-02, 04:42, said:

5Dx=

It's not restored to equity under the new rules? I don't ask because I think that is so, simply out of complete confusion.

[campboy]

The result is only restored to equity if that would be better for the non-offending side. Here the standard penalty (two tricks since revoker won the revoke trick and his side won at least one subsequent trick) is better for the non-offending side.

[Trinidad]

In short:
While you cannot lose tricks that you had won already before the revoke, you can lose tricks that you hadn't won yet, even if there was no way to lose them without the revoke.

You can have an opinion on that, but the Laws are clear. (And the WBFLC has thought about this situation.)

Rik

[AlexJonson]

So if you were an expert and felt compelled to throw a hand (for whatever reason, nice or nasty) this would be a perfect opportunity, ruffing as a revoke while holding Ace of trumps as the setting trick.

I couldn't not comment when we hear so much nonsense about the rules being designed to stop cheating.

[blackshoe]

Who is "we" and from whom are "we" hearing this nonsense?

The rules are designed to define correct procedure and to provide rectification for damage. They are not designed to stop cheating.

[AlexJonson]

[quote name='blackshoe' timestamp='1317584603' post='579688']
Who is "we" and from whom are "we" hearing this nonsense?

If you have never seen any references to the subject of cheating on these forums (and I believe you can search for the word cheat and cheating) then you presumably agree with my post.

If you have seen such references but prefer not to admit it, then you are in your own position.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-02, 13:58, said:

blackshoe, on 2011-October-02, 13:43, said:

Who is "we" and from whom are "we" hearing this nonsense?

If you have never seen any references to the subject of cheating on these forums (and I believe you can search for the word cheat and cheating) then you presumably agree with my post.

If you have seen such references but prefer not to admit it, then you are in your own position.

What are you talking about?

[BunnyGo]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-02, 14:45, said:

What are you talking about?

Little green martians who implemented 9/11 while programming our minds to cheat at bridge.

[AlexJonson]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-02, 14:45, said:

What are you talking about?

I suppose if we had threading, it would be clear whether your concise remark was addressed to me or Blackshoe.

If your remark was to me I need a tad more information content to generate the energy to reply.

If you just didn't care for my posts, there was a simpler way to indicate that, eg allow Blackshoe to deal with it.

[bluejak]

The problem with your posts is not one of the problems that Ed and myself normally deal with: they are not obscene, rude, or wildly off-topic. But they do seem to be bonkers.

[AlexJonson]

bluejak, on 2011-October-02, 17:25, said:

The problem with your posts is not one of the problems that Ed and myself normally deal with: they are not obscene, rude, or wildly off-topic. But they do seem to be bonkers.

Perhaps, and you definitely don't believe that any of the rules are designed to prevent cheating?

It merely struck me as mildly curious that revoking was one of few guaranteed ways to throw some points to the opposing declarer (normally unintentionally of course).
Seems a fairly uncontroversial remark. Certainly in Bridge, unlike Chess (or tennis or snooker), throwing points is not reported as a big problem.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-02, 15:19, said:

I suppose if we had threading, it would be clear whether your concise remark was addressed to me or Blackshoe.

If your remark was to me I need a tad more information content to generate the energy to reply.

If you just didn't care for my posts, there was a simpler way to indicate that, eg allow Blackshoe to deal with it.

I don't know what interface you are using; on mine, the comments I was asking about appeared imbedded in my post, directly above my content.

Anyway, if you are talking about sportsmanlike dumping, you are aware that there has long been a debate on whether or not this is "cheating" and that there is no consensus. In this case it is more interesting to discuss the ethics of sportsmanlike dumping rather than speculate on the ways this might be done; there are a million ways.
EDIT: But revoking would be one of the worst ways, because if it is determined that you did it on purpose, the penalty can be quite severe, up to banning.

If you are talking about something else, then I would be interested to know what it is. This was signified by "What are you talking about?" In English, this question is an attempt to elicit a reply indicating what you are talking about.

[AlexJonson]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-03, 09:43, said:

I don't know what interface you are using; on mine, the comments I was asking about appeared imbedded in my post, directly above my content.

Anyway, if you are talking about sportsmanlike dumping, you are aware that there has long been a debate on whether or not this is "cheating" and that there is no consensus. In this case it is more interesting to discuss the ethics of sportsmanlike dumping rather than speculate on the ways this might be done; there are a million ways.
EDIT: But revoking would be one of the worst ways, because if it is determined that you did it on purpose, the penalty can be quite severe, up to banning.

If you are talking about something else, then I would be interested to know what it is. This was signified by "What are you talking about?" In English, this question is an attempt to elicit a reply indicating what you are talking about.

See above.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-03, 09:59, said:

See above.

Are you still unable to "generate the energy" to explain? Oh well, I can manage without knowing.

[iviehoff]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-03, 09:31, said:

It merely struck me as mildly curious that revoking was one of few guaranteed ways to throw some points to the opposing declarer (normally unintentionally of course).

No one has ever worried about using revokes to cheat for the purposes of chucking, because there is no need to. There are many effective ways of throwing points to the opposition, should you wish to do so, on all but the simplest hands, without committing any procedural infractions. There are proprieties on (at least giving the appearance of) having an interest in the game, eg, L74B1 and L74C6, but it is unclear how you can actually require a team to play to its full ability at all times, when they so often fail unintentionally.

Revokes are of interest from the point of view of cheating mainly in relation to the so-called Alcatraz Coup, which is when you spot your intentional revoke in time to correct it, but not before you have learned something relevant, usually whether your LHO has a card in the suit.

I think I have to agree with people above when they say that the rules are not designed to stop cheating. What has been the most important issue of cheating in the history of the game? Improper communication. It even says so in the rules at 73B2. But how has the issue of improper communication been dealt with? By bringing in screens. Are screens in the laws? No, they are in subsidiary regulations, and only applied for high grade tournaments. There is even a Law that says, in effect, "thou shalt not cheat", L72B1, but it has no specific sanction associated with it. The Alcatraz Coup and its ilk are dealt with by L23, but this is not a law with penalties, only equity adjustment.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-03, 10:15, said:

There are many effective ways of throwing points to the opposition... without committing any procedural infractions.

Indeed; I think I am expert in most of them .