Online vs F2F equity
Which is fairer and is this equity.
F2F Bridge. The contract is 6S and three tricks from the end, with one trick already lost and a trump out higher than declarer’s remaining trump in hand. At trick 11 declarer plays K.D which is ruffed by East. East then plays Q.D to trick 12 (establishing the revoke) which Declarer trumps and plays out his last loosing Club (which the opposition win).
Two tricks transferred, therefore declarer making the contract (outright top).
If this had been played Online, being impossible to revoke, declarer would be two off. It makes you wonder how fair are some of the revoke rulings.
F2F Bridge. The contract is 6S and three tricks from the end, with one trick already lost and a trump out higher than declarer’s remaining trump in hand. At trick 11 declarer plays K.D which is ruffed by East. East then plays Q.D to trick 12 (establishing the revoke) which Declarer trumps and plays out his last loosing Club (which the opposition win).
Two tricks transferred, therefore declarer making the contract (outright top).
If this had been played Online, being impossible to revoke, declarer would be two off. It makes you wonder how fair are some of the revoke rulings.
Comments
I think it's a good thing that online bridge has the ability to prevent certain mechanical type infractions and it would be great if they could be prevented face-to-face too (actually they can if people would play on tablets). In the absence of that we have laws that have developed over many iterations to try to ensure that no-one loses out when their opponents commit such an infraction. Sometimes but not always they will gain from the infraction. The way to avoid this happening is to follow suit.
The online rules of an online event can produce their own inequity.
https://play.realbridge.online/di.html?p=220508123512&q=GCRFTD1#37r22
East's 1 club bid was presumably announced as: "could be short" and South bid 2 Diamonds with no alert. (Self alerting). West now doubled to show both majors and North passed.
East asked North the meaning of the bid and was told (correctly - but this wasn't verified) that the bid showed both majors. East therefore passed to await developments. Of course South passed and 2DX made for a very good score.
Face to face North would have alerted South's 2D bid and advised EW (if asked) that the bid showed both majors. How the auction would have progressed is anyone's guess - perhaps West would have passed and after North gave preference doubled for penalties - 2SX or 2HX doesn't look like it would be a success.
As the auction/ questioning went you would think that EW would be entitled to some redress -after all West wouldn't have doubled with the correct information.
The problem, however is that playing online with self alerts -Neither West, nor East are entitled to the correct explanation from North. They are only entitled to the explanation from South and, given that information, East would have bid spades.
So, since East committed the initial infraction, after some discussion, the table result was allowed to stand.
Not sure where you got this from. I have never seen anywhere that Law 40 does not apply to online bridge. East-West are still entitled to the correct explanation of North-South methods, even if online procedures mean that they are unlikely to receive it by the usual route.
It may be correct procedure that South, not North, gives the explanation. But this does not mean that East-West have no redress if that explanation is incorrect.
It's not clear (to me) from your post what East's 'initial infraction' was, & why that should have affected the existence of MI.
Well, as Gordon mentions, the only ideal situation is where revokes are simply impossible. There's certainly the possibility that they lead, as in the situation mentioned, to some rather artificial results. There's a couple of things I feel are worth mentioning;
1) The law is written to ensure that there is minimal risk of damage to the non-offending side, that's the usual emphasis. That can involve, as here, a certain amount of weighting in their favour. Since we really don't want to allow situations where sufficiently sharp players might be able to gain advantage by revoking there's logic in this (not the only reason, I'm trying to avoid writing an essay).
2) I caused a similarly artificial result in a robot tournament by playing the J from KJ under the Q, I'd simply been prepared for that play and didn't notice the Q had been called. I once won a handicap county chess match in 5 moves, for which I deserve only a very small share of the credit. These will sound familiar to all players, and perhaps if we think of a revoke as simply a particularly egregious mistake rather than an infraction (I suppose both of these are true), the situation described seems less of a problem.
Of course Law 40 applies. But the regulations of the EBU apply. The misinformation by South caused no damage therefore Law 40 did not apply.
The failure by East to follow the regulations damaged himself. Self damage does not lead to an adjustment.
The infraction comes from the breach of the Sky Blue Book Regulations.
East should not have asked North (initial irregularity) and North should not have replied (2nd irregularity). However North should not have been in that position - hence whilst it was discussed a split score was not awarded.
Ah - I assumed that when you said that East committed the "initial irregularity", it was prior to South's irregularity.
I possibly also misunderstood what you meant by...
...which to me suggested that once they have the incorrect explanation from South, they are stuck with that and never entitled to the correct explanation. Of course this is wrong: they may not be able to obtain the correct information during the auction via proper procedure, but they are nevertheless entitled to it, via a retrospective adjustment if necessary.
So, there were two irregularities / infractions:
1. South (misbid and) failed to self-alert / explain his bid as showing the majors
2. East failed to follow correct procedure, by asking North about the meaning of South's bid.
I might also suggest that North committed a third infraction by answering the question! But I'm prepared to ignore this.
The first constitutes MI, even though the (lack of) explanation was consistent with South's hand.
I agree that East has damaged himself. Whether or not gained through the proper channels, when he passed he was in possession of the correct information (about NS actual agreements, which I assume is not in doubt here), and therefore he has no redress. (nor is he entitled to the knowledge that there has been a misunderstanding, though he can infer that at his own risk).
However, West was in possession of MI when she doubled, and at this time East had committed no infraction (as I understand). If we deem that she wouldn't have doubled without this, then an adjustment may very well be due, whatever East may have done subsequently (unless we judge that East's actions constituted a serious error or gambling action).
It's possible, with the correct information, that West would have doubled anyway (perhaps with a different meaning), in which case the results stand. But I don't believe that you should dismiss the possibility of adjusting, just because of East's subsequent infraction.
I think we can agree that both F2F and Online Bridge cause there own set of different problems.
One problem with the Online method is that the RA has full power on how alerts should be presented. (See definitions) and furthermore has the power (as Director) to require the player who makes the alert to provide a description - Law 20F1.
So the EBU has jurisdiction to require the player who made the call to describe it - this has the advantage that the explanation will almost certainly match the hand (exceptions are possible e.g. if a player realises after they have made the call that they have made a mistake: note that they have no obligation to correct the explanation until the end of the auction period: 75B2) so the opponents (contrary to what happens F2F) will be told what the hand contains rather than what the explanation shows. This, in theory, is an advantage - it removes "convention disruption" and if East had obeyed the directives he would have been OK.