4 Trick penalty?

[dickiegera]

Today declarer in playing a 3 HEART contract revoked twice, once in Spades winning the trick

by trumping and a second time in clubs also by trumping. These were both done early in the play of the hand [4th & 9th tricks].

Is this a 4 TRICK PENALTY???

Thank you

[Sadie3]

You have not supplied enough information to allow a ruling on this issue.

1. Exactly when were the revokes established?

2. Did the offender win any tricks after the revokes?

3. When was the director called to the table?

 

The issue of whether this player is a novice or not might also have bearing on the ruling.

[axman]

Today declarer in playing a 3 HEART contract revoked twice, once in Spades winning the trick

by trumping and a second time in clubs also by trumping. These were both done early in the play of the hand [4th & 9th tricks].

Is this a 4 TRICK PENALTY???

Thank you

If declarer won no tricks after T9 there is a 3 trick penalty: one each for winning T4 and T9, and one for winning a trick subsequent T4. If declarer won a trick subsequent T9 then four trick penalty: one each for winning T4 and T9, and one for winning a trick subsequent T4 and one for winning a trick subsequent T9

 

subject to the provisions of L64B

[blackshoe]

And assuming both revokes were established (Law 63).

[bluejak]

Yes, it is a four trick penalty. As others have indicated, there must be four tricks available and the revokes must be established, and so on, but in principle, yes.

[blackshoe]

Actually, technically it's two two trick penalties, not one four trick penalty, but that's not a difference that matters, particularly to the players. B)

[iviehoff]

there must be four tricks available

In total, clearly. But as Axman points out, the T4 revoke is a 2 trick penalty even if T9 is the only trick won after the T4 revoke, (assuming the revoker wasn't over-ruffed on T4 or T9). Which implies that, exceptionally, some tricks won before the revoke might have to be transferred.

[pran]

there must be four tricks available

In total, clearly. But as Axman points out, the T4 revoke is a 2 trick penalty even if T9 is the only trick won after the T4 revoke, (assuming the revoker wasn't over-ruffed on T4 or T9). Which implies that, exceptionally, some tricks won before the revoke might have to be transferred.

HUH?

 

No trick won before T4 can be transferred.

If only one trick was won by the offender subsequent to (and including) T9 then three tricks is the maximum that can be transferred.

 

Four tricks are transferred provided that offender won both T4 and T9 and in addition won at least two tricks subsequent to T4, and that at least one of these tricks was won subsequent to T9.

 

Simple Math :D

 

regards Sven

[jeremy69]

The issue of whether this player is a novice or not might also have bearing on the ruling.

 

Why? What law would you quote to justify this approach?

[barmar]

It seems that what's confusing some people is what happens if T9 was the only trick won by the offending side subsequent to T4. Should T9 count as both a trick that was won by revoking and also as a trick won subsequent to a revoke, and thus be transferred twice?

 

But this doesn't really make sense.

[pran]

It seems that what's confusing some people is what happens if T9 was the only trick won by the offending side subsequent to T4. Should T9 count as both a trick that was won by revoking and also as a trick won subsequent to a revoke, and thus be transferred twice?

 

But this doesn't really make sense.

In that case T4 and T9 are the only tricks transferred. It doesn't matter whether T9 is transferred as the second trick for the first revoke or as the only trick available for the second revoke.

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

If you treat it as two separate revokes (which IMO you should) then the penalty specified for the first revoke is the transfer of two tricks (trick 4 and trick 9) in any scenario. The law then says that trick 9 is transferred for the second revoke "together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side". If there were no tricks won subsequent to trick 9, then only the one trick. But, I think Sven's (and others') argument goes, trick 9 has already been transferred. How can we transfer it again? This is a sensible argument, but I admit I have no idea what the lawmakers intended in this rare situation, if indeed they even considered it.

[duschek]

If you treat it as two separate revokes (which IMO you should) then the penalty specified for the first revoke is the transfer of two tricks (trick 4 and trick 9) in any scenario. The law then says that trick 9 is transferred for the second revoke "together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side". If there were no tricks won subsequent to trick 9, then only the one trick. But, I think Sven's (and others') argument goes, trick 9 has already been transferred. How can we transfer it again? This is a sensible argument, but I admit I have no idea what the lawmakers intended in this rare situation, if indeed they even considered it.

Indeed, the lawmakers not spelling out clearly the proper handling of this situation may lead us to discussing whether "a trick won" includes tricks made during the play and then transferred to the other side.

 

However, it certainly appears that the intention is that in the normal case (one revoke only) you cannot lose tricks made and completed prior to a revoke, so I find it hard to argue against the general intended principle being that you cannot end up with fewer tricks than you made prior to the first revoke.

 

In addition, we might otherwise hear the following conversation:

- "Who made trick nine?"

- "We did, twice in fact - and the opponents made it minus once!"

... which does not make much sense either. :)

[iviehoff]

No trick won before T4 can be transferred.

I realise you are right. Reading L64A1 it says

 

"...and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending

player, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred

is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any

subsequent tricks won by the offending side."

 

So basically as a consequence of both T4 and T9 revokes, it may be that T9 is transferred T9 to the non-offending side. But the fact that we are instructed to do so twice doesn't mean that two tricks are transferred.

[barmar]

So after transferring a trick, it's no longer "a trick won by the offending side".

 

But this raises a question. Suppose the offending player won T4 (revoke), T9 (revoke), and T10 (normal). The law says you transfer "one of any subsequent tricks", but doesn't say which. If, as the penalty for T4 you transfer T9, then it's no longer the case that the trick on which the T9 revoke occurred was won by the offending side, so you don't have to transfer another trick; it's just a total of 2 trick penalty. But if you transfer T10 instead, then T9 was still won by the offending player, and it gets transferred, a 3-trick penalty. You also get a 3-trick penalty if you penalize for T9 first.

 

So depending on the order that you do them, and which trick you select to transfer, you may get different results. Or maybe the definition of "trick won by the offending side" doesn't change in response to the transfer. In that case, all we can say is that you can't transfer the same trick twice.

[duschek]

Suppose the offending player won T4 (revoke), T9 (revoke), and T10 (normal).  The law says you transfer "one of any subsequent tricks", but doesn't say which.  If, as the penalty for T4 you transfer T9, then it's no longer the case that the trick on which the T9 revoke occurred was won by the offending side, so you don't have to transfer another trick; it's just a total of 2 trick penalty.  But if you transfer T10 instead, then T9 was still won by the offending player, and it gets transferred, a 3-trick penalty.  You also get a 3-trick penalty if you penalize for T9 first.

I would not be in doubt that the maximum possible number of tricks should be transferred, i.e., 3 tricks in this case.

 

I actually think we are better off not having this specified in the Laws, unless it can be done without making the text longer than it is now. The potential for ambiguity in this sort of double revoke probably occurs about once every 5-10 years worldwide, so I can live with having to make up the interpretation as outlined to which I think there is really no sensible alternative.

[barmar]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I revoked twice on one hand once. I was at my first NABC about 15 years ago, playing againt Chip Martel.