About revoke and rules

[drinbrasil]

Big controversy here in Brasil

 

The situation was:

 

Contract was 4H.

Declarer has trumphs 4-4. Then played first round, all followed, in second round 1 opp followed, in 3rd round both defenders followed again. In this moment, dummy called director saying one opp has made revoke.

 

The hand was played until end with 9 tricks. (not any evidence declarer used any info or played to go down 1 thinking in revoke trick - in fact hand is unmakeable)

 

How, in your opinion should be the end of it? Dummy made ilegal call according to law (in middle of game), but revoke in fact exist.

 

FYI:

After appeal commitee the result of hand for torney was 4H made, and dummy received disciplinary sanction.

[paulg]

FYI:

After appeal commitee the result of hand for torney was 4H made, and dummy received disciplinary sanction.

Sounds a reasonable decision.

[skjaeran]

FYI:

After appeal commitee the result of hand for torney was 4H made, and dummy received disciplinary sanction.

Sounds a reasonable decision.

The outcome of the hand seems obvious - contract made. Some disciplinary action seems called for, most probably a heavy warning IMO.

[ralph23]

Rather interesting facts. Dummy made a foul, but only as to the timing; he is permitted to draw attention to the revoke after the play concludes.

 

Since dummy's timing foul, apparently, didn't help declarer in the play -- the hand always takes 9 tricks -- the decision to treat it as a "harmless error" seems right.

[drinbrasil]

we can conclude from now that dummy is allowed to talk in middle of hand? I am not expert in rules (to be sincere i dont know anything for sure), but i remember some rule about when dummy talks, the partnership cant receive any benefits from what he said...

 

not 2 contradictory facts here?

[ralph23]

we can conclude from now that dummy is allowed to talk in middle of hand? I am not expert in rules (to be sincere i dont know anything for sure), but i remember some rule about when dummy talks, the partnership cant receive any benefits from what he said...

 

not 2 contradictory facts here?

The rule actually states that dummy can bring attention to an irregularity, but not until the play of the hand is concluded.

 

So my point was: Dummy did commit a foul. He pointed out an irregularity during the play of the hand. That was an error.

 

But recognize: He did have the right to wait until the end of the hand, and then point it out.

 

So I said: His error was not in pointing out the revoke per se, but rather when he did it. A timing question. He had the right to point it out; but not then.

 

So my question is: What harm did dummy's "premature" observation of the revoke do? The overall purpose of the Laws is not to penalize, but to restore equity.

 

My understanding from your statement was: None. Declarer did not benefit from dummy's foul. The hand will take 9 tricks no matter what.

 

Therefore, in equity, the revoke counts against the revoking side. This allows the contract to make.

 

Dummy still committed a foul, and gets a warning for his bad behavior.

[blackshoe]

Dummy is allowed to talk in the middle of the hand. He is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity (he is allowed to attempt to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity) nor is he allowed to "participate in the play" - i.e., he can't suggest how declarer should play the hand.

 

Dummy has committed a violation of Law 43A1{B}. According to Law 43B1, he is liable for a procedural penalty (PP) under Law 90 for this irregularity. PPs are at the discretion of the director or the appeals committee.

 

While the TD's (or AC's) authority to issue disciplinary penalties under Law 91 iis broad, it does include the caveat "to maintain good order and discipline". There was no breach of good order and discipline, so a disciplinary penalty is inappropriate.

 

I wouldn't call what dummy did "bad behavior". I suspect he just made a mistake, probably through ignorance of the laws or putting his mouth in gear before he engaged his brain. The TD or AC could issue a verbal warning under the aegis of Law 90 - IOW as a mild form of PP - or they could issue an actual one, usually in MPs or IMPs.

 

BTW, technically, a case cannot go to an appeals committee unless there has actually been a TD ruling to appeal, and here I don't think we're told what that was.

 

I note also that there is nothing in Laws 61-64 (which deal with revokes) which would preclude penalizing (or even suggest not penalizing) the revoke. The one trick penalty, based on the evidence presented, may be correct, but if the revoker won a trick with a trump (a card he could have played to the revoke trick) it's a two-trick penalty.

 

On balance, on the facts presented, I can find no fault with the committee's decision, with the caveats in the previous paragraph and that (a) the penalty issued should have been a PP under Law 90, and not a disciplinary penalty under Law 91, and {b} I would have made the penalty a warning, not an actual MP or IMP penalty, unless this player is known to do this kind of thing and has been warned about it before.

[mycroft]

I will admit, the number of dummies I have seen recently who believe it's their job to make sure partner doesn't lose them a matchpoint or two is really high - and it's getting more and more obvious. This one, in particular, is *blatant*.

 

What if there was no hope of making 4, but there was a risky line for 3 that worked? Dummy has just said "you only have to make 3 for an unmatchable top", instead of "if you make only 3, your zero will be a little less round."

 

I am going to phrase my setup backwards to Ed - I want to make sure that this dummy Never Does This Again. I can't figure out how to waive the revoke penalty, and frankly, I don't see a reason to; but unless they are novices and truly didn't know, this is a 1/2 board Law 90 PP. If they truly didn't know, I'd make it clear in my warning that this is not only normally penalizable, but with a more-than-normal penalty.

 

Of course, the major part of the warning would explain that at the end of the hand, dummy should ask everyone to not put the cards away and call the TD. Then the revoke will get dealt with, and if declarer has made three without the prompting, she makes the contract.

 

Maybe I'm just a little over-sensitive given dummy's pointing out at trick 7 that his wife had turned trick 2 the wrong way, in other words "you're not booked, you still have a trick you can lose" yesterday. The good news was that we still did have two tricks to come, and no real way to take 3.

 

As I said, the number of dummies who aren't shutting up and pushing cards is getting to me.

 

Michael.

[jtfanclub]

So, I'm sitting at a table playing a face to face game, and dummy (one of my opponents) calls the director, I forget why.

 

Conversation went like this.

 

Director: "May I help you?"

Dummy: "Yes, I-"

Me: "He's dummy"

Director: "Oh. Anybody else draw attention to an irregularity?"

Other Opponent "No."

Director: "Then call me back after the hand".

 

If you let the opponents walk all over you, don't complain about the footprints on your shirt.

[mycroft]

Okay, yesterday, it was a "friendly" club game, and known TDs sort of have to let the opponents "walk all over them", or it looks like TD-friendship issues. All I'm saying is that I've been seeing more dummy interference recently, so I'm likely to make a more stringent warning-penalty decision until it goes back to normal.

 

In your case, JT, as the TD, I would have explained more (about UI, potential penalties, or whatever) and stuck around for the hand, to make sure that there wasn't any funny business going on. But I like it.

 

"Yes, I-" "who pointed out the irregularity?" has been heard at tables I have come to a number of times...

Michael.

[blackshoe]

I am going to phrase my setup backwards to Ed - I want to make sure that this dummy Never Does This Again. I can't figure out how to waive the revoke penalty, and frankly, I don't see a reason to; but unless they are novices and truly didn't know, this is a 1/2 board Law 90 PP. If they truly didn't know, I'd make it clear in my warning that this is not only normally penalizable, but with a more-than-normal penalty.

 

Of course, the major part of the warning would explain that at the end of the hand, dummy should ask everyone to not put the cards away and call the TD. Then the revoke will get dealt with, and if declarer has made three without the prompting, she makes the contract.

 

Maybe I'm just a little over-sensitive given dummy's pointing out at trick 7 that his wife had turned trick 2 the wrong way, in other words "you're not booked, you still have a trick you can lose" yesterday. The good news was that we still did have two tricks to come, and no real way to take 3.

 

As I said, the number of dummies who aren't shutting up and pushing cards is getting to me.

 

Michael.

I would have made the penalty a warning, not an actual MP or IMP penalty, unless this player is known to do this kind of thing and has been warned about it before.

 

Nothing I said there precludes telling dummy what penalty he'll get if he does it again.

 

The size of a penalty awarded under Law 90 is completely at TD discretion. However, I will say that I've seen some people (not pointing at anyone in particular, or saying somebody did so in this thread) say that they would size the penalty according to what they thought the score adjustment should have been. That's illegal. Score adjustments and penalties are completely independent. If the laws lead you to a particular score adjustment, you cannot give a different one, and you cannot use a Law 90 penalty to get around that. If the laws allow you to award a PP, have at it - but in fairness you should size the PP according to local custom and the severity of the offense, not to the degree to which the particular offense (or the particular player) pisses you off.

[blackshoe]

Here's a counter-example to JT's story:

 

Several years ago, before I became interested in the laws and in directing, playing with a novice (and nervous - she was very easily intimidated) partner, that partner being declarer, my LHO began a series of badgering questions about the bidding. Partner became increasingly flustered, and when I felt it had risen to the level of harassment, I called the TD. He walked up, looked at the table (thus ascertaining that I was dummy, since my hand was face up in front of me) said "Ed, you know you're not allowed to call the director," turned around, and walked away.

 

Later, I asked Mike Flader about it, and he opined that dummy should call the TD for a ZT violation, even when no one else has called attention to it.

 

NB: that partner no longer plays duplicate bridge. This incident, and others like it, are the reason.

[Gerben42]

I'd rule 4♥ making and a disiplinary penalty for dummy The revoke has been estabilished and we can assume that if dummy had known the rules, he would have said nothing and then reported the revoke after the play finished.

 

Conclusion: You cannot set the result to down 1.

But you need to do something about dummy talking and possibly affecting the remaining tricks with some disciplinary penalty.

[mycroft]

I would have made the penalty a warning, not an actual MP or IMP penalty, unless this player is known to do this kind of thing and has been warned about it before.

 

Nothing I said there precludes telling dummy what penalty he'll get if he does it again.

 

My "I'm looking at it backwards" was that you said, effectively, "warning unless he's known to do this sort of thing"; I am saying "penalty unless it's clear he's too new to know better."

 

This situation is exactly why the Law was written; the timing makes it clear that it was blatantly meant to help declarer; anybody who's played the game at all knows this is unfair; if I just slap someone who does this on the wrist, he'll keep doing it.

 

Michael.