Is this legal?

[iscbrooks]

[hv=n=sh3dakqjt974c8432&w=skj98543h6d3cakqj&e=saqt762h542d865ct&s=shakqjt987d2c9765]399|300|[/hv]

 

As south, make 4♥ on a club lead.

 

 

Impossible right? Not so. You can easily win the contract by ruffing the opening lead. You suffer the two trick penalty for the ravoke, but nevertheless make the contract with an overtrick. Here, despite the penalties, you gain from cheating.

 

The obvious question is whether this is legal. Sure they prescribed specific penalties, but are you allowed to take advantage of them? Is a revoke cheatin, or just a tractic that penalizes two tricks?

[Free]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great post! And this is only your third!! Hope to see lots of these mate :(

 

I don't think this is legal, but I'm not sure since I'm no TD. However, rules are to penalize, not to award mistake. Since you'd get a huge advantage, I don't think you'll get away with it. Perhaps if you can convince the TD that you saw a ♠ lead, but even then I'm not sure...

[Flame]

You should read the Law about revokes better, you will find out that the law deals with this problem. If by revoking you gained more then the 2 tricks you will give it back. This doesnt matter wather you cheated or made a mistake.

[Free]

Btw, you get away nice with going down one, since opps have 5♠ laydown...

[Gerben47]

Yes, you have to give back more tricks if the damage is greater than the 2-trick transfer.

 

Doing something like this on purpose is cheating and should be punished severely (like kicking the person out of the tournament).

[McBruce]

One of my favorite local partners is an elderly gentleman from Iran (left before the revolution and often talks about the old days...) who will probably never die: he is in his eighties and still walks more in a day than I do in a week, at a speed even I, about 35 cm (14 inches) taller, would find hard to match. The bridge quality is fading but nothing ruffles him and he is a joy to play with for the entertainment value alone. Once we were defending a slam and he somehow carefully neglected to release his last trump until declarer's fifth attempt to extract it. Declarer had miscounted trumps and had decided that he would need a squeeze. Imagine his surprise when my partner won the squeeze trick and proceeded to cash four more winners! I called the Director once the play ended and somehow managed to describe what had happened without bursting into laughter. The Director asked the opponents if they agreed. They did. "OK," said the Director. "Transfer five tricks from the defense to the declaring side and score it up." At this point my partner interrupted:

 

"Excuse me. FIVE tricks? At the club where I play I only have to give one or two!" :(

[kgr]

Law 64C:

 

C. Director Responsible for Equity

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

 

http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/

 

Law 64A sets the minimum penalty, but this can be increased if law 64C applies.

[Trpltrbl]

The director has to give an adjusted score, believe me you weren't the first to think of this :D

You end up losing your 4 ♣ tricks and a penalty trick :unsure:

 

Mike :P

[PriorKnowledge]

A common revoke that gains many tricks is holding the Qx in 3N when RHO has preempted. When RHO cashs the 2nd top honor, revoke to keep the Q as a stopper and then take the rest. That makes a 5 trick difference.

 

The often-quoted deliberate revoke by declarer is holding K109 in dummy and AJx in hand. Lead the 10 from dummy and revoke in hand. When LHO plays the Q, say, "Oh, excuse me... I have those," retract the revoke card, play the A and finesse. If LHO had played small, you would finesse RHO. Since dummy has not played, the revoke is not established.

 

Of course, you can never gain by illegal action and attempting either of these actions deliberately is called "cheating" and would result in discipline action.

[mikestar]

The director has to give an adjusted score, believe me you weren't the first to think of this  :P

You end up losing your 4 ♣ tricks and a penalty trick  :D

 

Mike  :)

Not quite--the director either imposes the revoke penalty or restores equity whichever is more favorable to the non offenders. So in the example, you lose the same four tricks as if you had not revoked.

 

Of course, if there were evidence you had done it deliberately, there would be disciplinary penalties.

[Trpltrbl]

The director has to give an adjusted score, believe me you weren't the first to think of this  :rolleyes:

You end up losing your 4 ♣ tricks and a penalty trick  :D

 

Mike  :D

Not quite--the director either imposes the revoke penalty or restores equity whichever is more favorable to the non offenders. So in the example, you lose the same four tricks as if you had not revoked.

 

Of course, if there were evidence you had done it deliberately, there would be disciplinary penalties.

Equity is 4 tricks, the adjusted score is still that and 1 penatly trick and if they find it has been done on purpose, much heavier penalties will happen.

 

Mike :)

[mikestar]

LAW 12

DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS

A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score

The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or:

1. Laws Provide No Indemnity

The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.

2. Normal Play of the Board is Impossible

The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88).

3. Incorrect Penalty Has Been Paid

The Director may award an adjusted score if an incorrect penalty has been paid.

 

 

B. No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score

1. Artificial Score

When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

2. Assigned Score

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

3. Powers of Appeals Committee

Unless Zonal Organizations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

In the case at hand the most favorable result likely is 4H-1, as is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, since there will be four losers unless someone plays irrationally. The table result is 4H+3 before the revoke penalty, which becomes 4H+1 after the two tricks are transferred. Since this is insufficient compensation, the director restores equity by adjusting the score.

[EarlPurple]

There are no penalty tricks if no tricks are won after the revoke.

 

If I take the ace and king of a suit against a slam and subsequently one of us revokes while declarer is cashing out his 11 remaining tricks, the result will remain down 1.

[paulhar]

Not quite--the director either imposes the revoke penalty or restores equity whichever is more favorable to the non offenders. So in the example, you lose the same four tricks as if you had not revoked.

 

Of course, if there were evidence you had done it deliberately, there would be disciplinary penalties.

You wuold think that the laws would state that you would never gain from such a situation. But such a miscarriage of justice did happen. I played a hand in a tournament pair game about 23 years ago (when you play once a year you remember these things B) ). Declarer was running AKQ seventh of diamonds in dummy and I absentmindedly revoked with jack third. When I took the jack, I cashed out for down four, "Director!". The director came, and awarded the declarer his nine tricks.

 

A couple days later, I'm perusing the recap and noticed I got 8 on a 12 top on that board. People don't discard too well on running seven card suits and we probably would have been no exception. Fortunately, we didn't place, so I didn't get anything I didn't deserve, but the adjustment time was over and I can't help but wonder if our opponents might have placed (or placed better) if they had got a result I feel was more equitable. If I had noticed the result in time, I would have probably spoke to the director and asked that the opponents had been given a more reasonable result.

[Fluffy]

I´ve seen my partner stopping opponents ♦ 7 card suit suit with the 6 after 2 revokes (not on purpose), since nobody was having cards opponent played small ♦ instead of top on 4th trick of the suit.

 

Local torunament director didn´t even listen much to the facts, just asked if the revoked card made atrtick, so just 2 tricks more for them for 3 off instead of the 5 deserved.

[bambi1]

Intentional revokes should be seriously penalized. It ruins the ethics and quality of this game. It is definitely a form of cheating, and severe punishment should take place.

[Cascade]

Law 72 B2. Intentional

"A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay."

[1eyedjack]

I´ve seen my partner stopping opponents ♦ 7 card suit suit with the 6 after 2 revokes (not on purpose), since nobody was having cards opponent played small ♦ instead of top on 4th trick of the suit.

 

Local torunament director didn´t even listen much to the facts, just asked if the revoked card made atrtick, so just 2 tricks more for them for 3 off instead of the 5 deserved.

I recall someone revoking in ♦ in order to retain the ♦7 as a card to win trick 13 and several beers. It was deemed sufficient penalty that (in addition to the revoke penalty) he be the one to buy the beers.

[1eyedjack]

I saw a post in another forum that I thought quite interesting. The correspondent was bemoaning the rule that a two-trick penalty is imposed instead of a 1 trick penalty, in circumstances where the non-offending side take all tricks subsequent to the revoke, the offending side take the revoke trick, and the revoke occurs on the 4th card played to the trick which is already being won by revoker's partner.

 

The correspondent received no sympathy, but I found the argument quite appealing.

 

To recap, LHO leads the King of trumps, your partner plays the Ace of trumps, your RHO plays a small trump and at this point you discard despite holding a trump. LHO then makes all of the rest of the tricks.

 

There is not a whole lot of logic behind the revoke laws, but the general principle seems to be: You lose a trick automatically as a "penalty". Fair do's. Nothing to do with equity. Then there is possibly a second trick penalty, in order to severely penalise someone who appears to gain from the revoke. That is the underlying reason for the second trick penalty. Rather a crude yardstick, but the measure of having gained by the revoke, that avoids the need for Deep Finessing each hand on which there is a revoke, is to deem there to be an advantage gained if a subsequent trick is won by the revoking side with a card that could have been played legally on the revoke trick.

 

At least, in that event, there is a POSSIBILITY that the subsequent trick won resulted from the revoke. But in the scenario suggested that possibility can never arise. If advantage can never arise from the revoke it seems a little harsh to impose a two trick penalty.

 

So I had some sympathy with the correspondent. Most of the replies simply stated what the rules are (on which point there was never any dispute) without addressing the reason for those laws or their shortcomings.

[mikestar]

I saw a post in another forum that I thought quite interesting.  The correspondent was bemoaning the rule that a two-trick penalty is imposed instead of a 1 trick penalty, in circumstances where the non-offending side take all tricks subsequent to the revoke, the offending side take the revoke trick, and the revoke occurs on the 4th card played to the trick which is already being won by revoker's partner.

 

The correspondent received no sympathy, but I found the argument quite appealing.

 

To recap, LHO leads the King of trumps, your partner plays the Ace of trumps, your RHO plays a small trump and at this point you discard despite holding a trump.  LHO then makes all of the rest of the tricks. . . .

 

The director misruled in this case--the correct penalty is the one trick penalty which is imposed whenever the revoking side wins the revoke trick or any subsequent trick. The two trick penaly applies if and only if:

• 
   
  
• The offending side wins the revoke trick with the revoke card, and wins at least one subsequent trick; OR
   
  
• The offending side wins two or more subsequent tricks (including the revoke trick), at least one of which was won by a card which could have been legally played to the revoke trick.
   
  

 

 

LAW 64

PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE

A. Penalty Assessed

When a revoke is established:

1. Offending Player Won Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player, (penalty) after play ceases, the trick on which the revoke occurred, plus one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side, are transferred to the non-offending side.

2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

 

 

B. No Penalty Assessed

The penalty for an established revoke does not apply:

1. Offending Side Fails to Win Revoke Trick or Subsequent Trick

if the offending side did not win either the revoke trick or any subsequent trick.

2. Second Revoke in Same Suit by Offender

to a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player.

3. Revoke by Failure to Play a Faced Card

if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand.

4. After Non-offending Side Calls to Next Deal

if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal.

5. After Round Has Ended

if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

6. Revoke on Twelfth Trick

to a revoke on the twelfth trick.

 

 

C. Director Responsible for Equity

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

[1eyedjack]

The director misruled in this case--the correct penalty is the one trick penalty

Ah, I wonder if I misread the original post. Perhaps he was bemoaning the one-trick penalty, in which case my sympathy dissipates. I shall re-check when I have time.

[mikestar]

Under current laws Bridge has the mildest revoke penalty in the world of trick taking games. For comparison:

 

Bridge pre 1975: 2 tricks

Whist: 3 tricks, can include pre-revoke tricks.

Pinochle: by bidder--loses bid even if already made.

by defender--bid makes even if already defeated, revoker pays entire loss for defensive side.

Hearts: revoker takes all 26 points for the deal.

Many games: forfeit of entire game.

[epeeist]

In some of Victor Mollo's "Menagerie" books, the distinction (at least as at the time of writing, I assume this is still the case) between the laws of rubber bridge and of tournament bridge with respect to revokes is made.

 

In tournament bridge, as many have pointed out, the director can remedy an unfair result (e.g. if revoker benefits from revoke, even with transfer of tricks, the director can adjust the result).

 

In rubber bridge, unless the laws have been changed, the only penalty is the transfer of tricks (this might have been the basis of the story a previous poster mentioned, about the elderly bridge player who was expecting a lesser penalty). So the only real remedy is not to play with people whose behaviour offends you. And don't play for money unless you've agreed what to do in case of revokes... :rolleyes:

[mikestar]

Under the current Rubber Bridge laws, the is no such thing as an adjusted score (except in the special laws or club games, which provide for an Arbiter with similar powers to a TD).

 

However, the revoke law states that the offending side is ethically required to transfer additonal tricks when needed to restore equity, The example given has declarer making 3N if the diamonds split 3-3 (which they do) but a defender revokes in diamonds, leaving declarer down 2 even after the penalty. The revoking side is required to transfer two addittional tricks so that 3N makes.