PeterAlan

Glenda Jackson

Law 7C: That seems to say pretty clearly that a player is expected to return all 13 of their cards to the board (and where and when).

EBU's White Book's section 8 gives supplementary guidance on all the Laws, including Law 70 (8.70; White Book 8.x comments on Law x).

I always understood that the reason was that what was being counted was presidential administrations, ie presidencies.

Let's approach it this way. If I, as TD, was called by dummy and W objected to this as violating 43A1(a), then I'd reply "You've drawn attention to your revoke by your subsequent actions." As dummy, I'd call the TD and be prepared to say this if asked why I'd done so: it's the TD's call as to whether (s)he accepts this interpretation.

I see your point, and I might agree over the quitted tricks point (and to a play out of turn; we're really concerned with irregularities during the play period). But the circumstances of most revokes don't draw attention to themselves; they typically go un-noted at the time. Here, however, the action of subsequently replacing a revoke card by a card of the revoked-on suit surely draws attention to the revoke itself: bear in mind that a revoke is defined in Law 61A as the "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 (etc)", ie it is just that failure that constitutes the revoke, and W's subsequent actions draw attention to his earlier failure.

Indeed - as we've already noted, the revoke was not the only irregularity here. But I don't see a problem with dummy calling the TD. There's more than one way to 'draw attention'. Even if whole charade had been played out in silence (and I would have expected either W to have said "Sorry, I revoked" or N or E to have said "What's going on?"), W's actions alone draw attention to his revoke, as well as to his violation of the quitted tricks law.

I was being stupid in a hasty reply - of course, E, whilst on lead, is not the partner of a player with a major penalty card. But I'm still not understanding your reason for thinking that ♣6 has become a major penalty card - what am I missing? You say "Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so." Yes, ♣6 was led to trick 3, but in the normal course of play before there was any reason to suppose that there had been a revoke - W didn't expose either the ♣9 or the ♦7 until after ♣6 was led - and it was only later that this reason for calling the TD arose. It seems to me that ♣6 remains led to trick 3 and never becomes a major penalty card. What do you think I am missing? Why would the TD ever be trying to give the declarer the option you mention?

My understanding of the OP was that E had led ♣6 to the third trick in the normal course of play before the revoke was realised or the ♣9 displayed. Why, then, does it become a major penalty card? (♥s, not ♦s, are trumps, so W has discarded on trick 2 and is not on lead to trick 3.) And if ♣6 were a major penalty card (which I don't think it is) then declarer would have the usual options and it would not have to become the lead to trick 3.

Assuming that the TD was called immediately after W perpetrated his shenanigans at the third trick and before N played to that trick, then: W's revoke at trick 2 has been established - his partner has played to trick 3 (and we don't need to concern ourselves with W's 'play' to determine this) W's ♦7 remains played to trick 2 (Law 63B; the trick has been quitted and E has played to trick 3) W's ♣9 becomes played to trick 3, to which N now plays W's trump becomes a major penalty card (his attempted revoke at this trick - given that he must now play ♣9 - is not established). There is a baseline one-trick penalty for the revoke (that trick 2 was won by the revoking side), subject as always to Law 64C, and a PP (possibly a warning) or DP for W depending on where on the spectrum of total confusion at one end to deliberate attempt to cheat at the other his behaviour is thought to lie. (At the very least he has violated Law 66C regarding quitted tricks.) I don't think that this belongs in the 'Simple Rulings' forum!

I was careful to say the hand was 'memorable' for us, and Zia wasn't put out - the previous 6 deals had been good for them, and he could see the curiosity. Whilst I meant the tale primarily as an anecdote the hand itself was actually intrinsically quite interesting too, but I take your point.

That would be covered by Law 73B.

Surely it's a matter of Law 16B1, isnt it? S's question, asked when it shouldn't have been, creates unauthorised information for N. E (dummy) is quite entitled to raise the matter under 16B3. E's use of his phone is a separate matter, and might depend on local rules (and scoring technology).

For those that might be interested, I would mention Law 6 (especially parts A, B, D2 & E4) which essentially requires that the deals in each event be random "unless the purpose of the tournament is the replay of past deals". And apropos 'boring' deals, over the years partner and I have played a dozen or so matchpoint deals against Zia at various EBU events in London. We have, memorably, one outright top amongst those deals: partner, dealer, inadvertently passed a balanced 14-count and the deal was passed out. Neither Zia (second in hand) nor his partner had an opening bid, but if they had got into the auction 4 spades was on their way.

What's the point of anyone spending their time trying to do so, if any response that doesn't comport with your preconceptions is going to be met with a delusional dismissal? I, for one, have no intention of wasting my time on you again.