Revoke

[bali 2]

[hv=n=sxhxxdxxc&w=sjxhdaxxc&e=sxhdjxxxc&s=s109hxxdqc]399|300|[/hv]

 

South is declarer in 4H and plays the S 10 : W the Jack, N small Spade, E small Diamond ( revoke ).

Now West shows his D Ace and says that he concedes the other tricks, but E objects and wants play to be continued ( he has realised that he revoked ). The TD is called and tells players to continue playing, but before any play, E says that he has revoked on the last trick and shows his small Spade. Now the revoke is not established and there is no trick transferred.

 

My question is : does East has the right to object to a concession of his partner in the aim to cancel the establishment of his revoke ? Doesn't the right to object to a partner's concession is applicable only when you think you have one( or several ) trick more to win ?

 

Many thanks in advance

Al.Ohana

[pran]

Now West shows his D Ace and says that he concedes the other tricks, but E objects and wants play to be continued ( he has realised that he revoked ). The TD is called and tells players to continue playing, but before any play, E says that he has revoked on the last trick and shows his small Spade. Now the revoke is not established and there is no trick transferred.

 

My question is : does East has the right to object to a concession of his partner in the aim to cancel the establishment of his revoke ?  Doesn't the right to object to a partner's concession is applicable only when you think you have one( or several ) trick more   to win ?

 

Many thanks in advance

Al.Ohana

Of course: East may object to his partner's concession for whatever reason he might have.

 

In this case it is his very last possibility to avoid the revoke to become established. That is a valid bridge reason as good as anything.

(If West actually led his ♦A it would of course have been too late, the revoke would already have been established, but that is not how I read your words)

 

regards Sven

[Pig Trader]

That's interesting as I would have ruled that the revoke had been established under Law 63A3. Have I missed something?

[pran]

That's interesting as I would have ruled that the revoke had been established under Law 63A3. Have I missed something?

Law 68B: 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. . . . . .

[axman]

That's interesting as I would have ruled that the revoke had been established under Law 63A3. Have I missed something?

Law 68B: 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. . . . . .

Play to a subsequent trick by the OS establishes the revoke. THe DA is such a play.

 

As for the notion that had there been no DA then L68B prevents immediate establishment of such a revoke:

 

68B2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred.

 

 

Notably the revoke was established upon the concession:

 

63A3. A revoke becomes established: when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

 

B. Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

 

and L63B provides that the established revoke can't be corrected, and notably L68A in its enthusiasm to declare that no concession occurred did not include that if a revoke had occurred during the previous trick it had not been yet established.

[Pig Trader]

Exactly!

 

The Claim/Concession established the revoke under 63A3 and while the objection to the concession may have cancelled the concession, there is nothing in the Laws to say that the objection has un-established the revoke.

[bluejak]

It is not clear from axman's last post whether he agrees with pran.

 

But I can assure him that when no concession has occurred [the Law's words] that no revoke has been established by a concession!!!

[iviehoff]

Comment deleted because it was all based upon a misreading of the original post.

[Pig Trader]

does East has the right to object to a concession of his partner in the aim to cancel the establishment of his revoke

 

Well, I sit corrected, and the answer is Yes, except that it's not a matter of cancelling the establishment, which we can't do, but a matter of making the establishment never having happened, which we can do!

 

if W plays his trump

 

West had no trumps.

[iviehoff]

West had no trumps.

Sorry, I thought we were in 4S. Which makes me realise that all that I said was rubbish. I'll go and delete it.

[blackshoe]

Sven suggested that the ♦A was not played, but exposed as part of a claim. Axeman suggests that it was played. I think it could go either way, and I was originally leaning towards "played", but re-reading the OP, I'm now leaning the other other way, if only slightly. It does make a difference — if the ♦A was played, then East's clever machinations to avoid establishment of his revoke come to naught. On the information available, though, I'd rule under 68B2 that no claim or concession has occurred, knowledge of West's exposed cards is UI to East, play to continue. East must correct his revoke. If West now leads ♦A, he gets that trick, and South will get the rest. If West leads a low diamond, he'll never get his Ace. If he leads a spade, South will have to give him a diamond eventually. Of the remaining 5 tricks, then, at the beginning of this scenario, West gets two, South three, unless West leads a low diamond at trick ten. I suppose South could do something incredibly stupid with his trumps, depending on the spots, and lose another trick, but I think that's unlikely. IAC, it's the players who determine it, not the TD.

 

I don't think 64C is germane here, as there was no damage, but I think the TD needs to remember to check when something like this happens.

[pran]

Sven suggested that the ♦A was not played, but exposed as part of a claim.

On a minor point: I didn't suggest, I read the OP which said: Now West shows his D Ace and says that he concedes the other tricks. (All enhancements made by me.)

 

I too made it completely clear that it made all the difference if West actually played his Ace rather than just showing it.

[blackshoe]

On a minor point: I didn't suggest, I read the OP which said: Now West shows his D Ace and says that he concedes the other tricks. (All enhancements made by me.)

Very minor, and I'm not going to argue semantics.

 

I too made it completely clear that it made all the difference if West actually played his Ace rather than just showing it.

 

Yes, you did. I didn't say otherwise.