new revokes...

[Fluffy]

[hv=n=sxxx&w=sakxxx&e=s10x&s=sqj9]399|300|[/hv]

 

contract 4♠ west leads ♦A, east producing the 10, then ♦K east discards, next another diamond east ruffs and declarer makes all the tricks.

 

how many tricks for NS?

[blackshoe]

East revoked on the second round of diamonds (Law 61A). The revoke was established when West led a third diamond (Law 63A1). The trick on which East revoked was won by West, not East, so one trick is transferred to NS, because the offending side won the revoke trick (Law 64A2).

[dburn]

xxx AKxxx 10x QJ9

 

contract 4♠ west leads ♦A, east producing the 10, then ♦K east discards, next another diamond east ruffs and declarer makes all the tricks.

 

how many tricks for NS?

Eleven, subject to the Director's view under Law 64C.

 

Law 64

 

When a revoke is established [...]

 

[...] 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, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

That deals with East's revoke at trick two.

 

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke [...] if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply.

That deals with East's revoke at trick three.

 

I can see no reason why a Director would apply Law 64C to arrive at a different conclusion, but I can see no reason for a number of things Directors do, despite which they do them anyway.

[Fluffy]

david you are quoting 2007 rules, but haven't they changed recently?

[gordontd]

david you are quoting 2007 rules, but haven't they changed recently?

No

[RMB1]

david you are quoting 2007 rules, but haven't they changed recently?

The current laws are the "2007" Laws, see www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/2007laws.asp.

 

The laws were agreed by the WBF LC in late 2007 but there were changes to the index and (notably) to Law 27 early in 2008. Most countries (NBOs) and Zones adopted the new laws between March and November 2008.

[bluejak]

Furthermore, the 2007 Laws are called the "2008 Laws" in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

Furthermore, the 2007 Laws are called the "2008 Laws" in the ACBL.

Time zone differences.

[Fluffy]

Furthermore, the 2007 Laws are called the "2008 Laws" in the ACBL.

Time zone differences.

Lol, and the translation took maybe a couple of years to come to Spain B).

[Fluffy]

Another example

 

contract 4♦X

 

south is declarer and plays 2 rounds of trumps east discarding on the second round.

 

next south tries to cash ♥A wich is ruffed by east. Later EW make 4 more tricks.

 

 

assuming there was no damage to south missplaying due to the revoke, how many tricks for NS?

[blackshoe]

Two, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if two tricks doesn't restore equity, you adjust the score to however many tricks does restore it.

[billw55]

Another example

 

contract 4♦X

 

south is declarer and plays 2 rounds of trumps east discarding on the second round.

 

next south tries to cash ♥A wich is ruffed by east. Later EW make 4 more tricks.

 

 

assuming there was no damage to south missplaying due to the revoke, how many tricks for NS?

Nobody called the director immediately when the ♥A was ruffed? B)

[gordontd]

Two, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if two tricks doesn't restore equity, you adjust the score to however many tricks does restore it.

One or other of us is mis-reading the question, because it seems to me that East did not win the revoke trick, and so your answer should have started "One, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if one trick ..."

[blackshoe]

I guess I'm the one who misread it. :blink:

[iviehoff]

Nobody called the director immediately when the ♥A was ruffed? :(

Why should anyone bother when it is too late for the revoke to be corrected? It doesn't prejudice anyone's rights to wait until the end of the hand. The only reason for calling now, on either side, would be if you weren't very familiar with the rules on what tricks get transferred, and wanted a statement from the director on those rules, to assist you in planning the future play. There is no obligation on either side to call attention to the revoke at this point, and it might assist the opposition to do so, because they might not have noticed.

[billw55]

Nobody called the director immediately when the ♥A was ruffed?  :lol:

Why should anyone bother when it is too late for the revoke to be corrected? It doesn't prejudice anyone's rights to wait until the end of the hand. The only reason for calling now, on either side, would be if you weren't very familiar with the rules on what tricks get transferred, and wanted a statement from the director on those rules, to assist you in planning the future play. There is no obligation on either side to call attention to the revoke at this point, and it might assist the opposition to do so, because they might not have noticed.

As I understand the laws, it is required to call the director when there is an irregularity. Ergo noticing the revoke and failing to call the director is itself a violation. Perhaps I am wrong.

[campboy]

Not quite. You are required to call the attention once someone draws attention to an irregularity (law 9B1), but even if you notice it there is no obligation to draw attention to it. In particular, law 72B2 says that there is no onus on the offending side to point out an accidental revoke that the NOS might not have noticed.

 

[This does not apply if you revoke and then realise before the revoke is established that you have done so: in that case you are obliged to correct it (L62A).]

[blackshoe]

Not quite. You are required to call the attention director once someone draws attention to an irregularity (law 9B1)…

Fixed. :)

[Fluffy]

in the firt case NS make normally 3 tricks, but since there is a revoke they end up getting only 2.

 

on the second one, EW normally make 4 tricks, due to the revoke they make 5, but later 1 is transfered so only 4, no difference, no penalty in the end.

 

Why are the cases different?

 

further more: in the second case, if east notices his revoke, it might be worth it to let it go, win a trick with its trump later and lose the revoke trick, that pay attention, and then have to deal with a major penalty card.

[blackshoe]

Except that is illegal.

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

Also, "must" in this law indicates that a violation is a serious matter, so it would almost certainly draw a PP.

[bluejak]

in the firt case NS make normally 3 tricks, but since there is a revoke they end up getting only 2.

 

on the second one, EW normally make 4 tricks, due to the revoke they make 5, but later 1 is transfered so only 4, no difference, no penalty in the end.

 

Why are the cases different?

Why are they different? Because the situations are different. We have a Law that in effect simplifies life for TDs - especially lesser TDs - by often making sure equity is satisfied, and also providing a random penalty element of between 0 and 2 tricks. If you do not like the Law this is not the right forum to discuss a change. But we have to interpret it and apply it, and the random penalty element is part of it.

[dburn]

in the firt case NS make normally 3 tricks, but since there is a revoke they end up getting only 2.

 

on the second one, EW normally make 4 tricks, due to the revoke they make 5, but later 1 is transfered so only 4, no difference, no penalty in the end.

 

Why are the cases different?

Why are they different? Because the situations are different. We have a Law that in effect simplifies life for TDs - especially lesser TDs - by often making sure equity is satisfied, and also providing a random penalty element of between 0 and 2 tricks. If you do not like the Law this is not the right forum to discuss a change. But we have to interpret it and apply it, and the random penalty element is part of it.

I should go on record here as saying that I agree with almost every word uttered by my learned brother Bluejak.

 

I would, however, make one small correction: in the phrase "by often making sure equity is satisfied", the word "often" should be replaced by the words "almost never".

[bluejak]

Are you seriously telling me that when a normal revoke occurs, one trick does not usually restore equity?

[dburn]

Are you seriously telling me that when a normal revoke occurs, one trick does not usually restore equity?

I am not quite sure what you mean by "a normal revoke". What I tell you is this: that the "random" transfer of anywhere between 0 and 2 tricks certainly does not "restore equity" in the vast majority of cases. This is to be expected, of course, for any "random" penalty will have little to do with "equity" in the first place.

 

It may be worthwhile to examine why the revoke Law and other Laws are as they are.

 

One begins with the reasonable notion that if you steal what is not yours, you should give it back. One supplements this with the equally reasonable notion that you should be punished for attempted theft. Hence, the earliest form of the revoke law involved an implacable transfer of two tricks - the one that you stole (by ruffing when you could follow suit) and the one that constituted your debt to society as embodied by your present opponents.

 

The assumption underlying all this is that no one would actually revoke except for immediate gain - that is, miscreants would cheat by ruffing when they could follow suit. Similarly, the assumption underlying the Laws relating to calls out of turn, or insufficient bids, is that no one would actually make them except for gain; so, the Laws were constructed to ensure that [a] no gain could ensue and the offenders would be punished (by having to bid in the dark).

 

Now, there was no question of "equity" involved in any of this. The notions were more primitive: the penalty for doing wrong combined an element of restitution with an element of deterrence (you gave the opponents their trick back, and you were penalized another trick to encourage you not to commit the same offence again).

 

Of course, this would not do - it became clear (if it was not clear already) that even after the prescribed penalty was paid, some revokes could gain more than the trick transferred by way of restitution and the trick transferred by way of deterrence.

 

What was done about this? Well, by that time an enlightened society had chosen to distinguish between deliberate and inadvertent transgressions; so that if you swindled the opponents out of three tricks (with or without meaning to), you didn't have to give them anything by way of a deterrent in order to prevent you from trying the same swindle again. If on the other hand you swindled them out of no tricks at all (as by showing out, then showing back in again while an opponent ran a solid suit), you were punished to the full extent of the Law. That extent is now one trick rather than the two it used to be, but whatever else it is, it is not "equitable".

 

This is, of course, hopeless. But it is the Law, and (as with many of the other Laws to which I have alluded), it is an unacceptable compromise between one of two equally tenable positions. The first (and the easier) of these is to cast the Laws as if everyone were potentially a cheat. The second (and the more difficult) is to cast the Laws as if everyone were determined to follow them to the letter, and to ignore transgressions by calling them all "irregularities" rather than "infractions", and to refer to "rectification" rather than "penalty". Moreover, one refers - as Bluejak refers in his more lucid moments - not to a "cheat" but, pardon him, to someone who has "inadvertently" failed to follow the rules.

 

Almost all games have rules that follow the first of the paths outlined above. Bridge is the only game I know that follows the second. Hinc, as someone wisely remarked, illae lacrimae.

[pran]

Are you seriously telling me that when a normal revoke occurs, one trick does not usually restore equity?

I am not quite sure what you mean by "a normal revoke". What I tell you is this: that the "random" transfer of anywhere between 0 and 2 tricks certainly does not "restore equity" in the vast majority of cases. This is to be expected, of course, for any "random" penalty will have little to do with "equity" in the first place.

 

It may be worthwhile to examine why the revoke Law and other Laws are as they are.

 

One begins with the reasonable notion that if you steal what is not yours, you should give it back. One supplements this with the equally reasonable notion that you should be punished for attempted theft. Hence, the earliest form of the revoke law involved an implacable transfer of two tricks - the one that you stole (by ruffing when you could follow suit) and the one that constituted your debt to society as embodied by your present opponents.

 

The assumption underlying all this is that no one would actually revoke except for immediate gain - that is, miscreants would cheat by ruffing when they could follow suit. Similarly, the assumption underlying the Laws relating to calls out of turn, or insufficient bids, is that no one would actually make them except for gain; so, the Laws were constructed to ensure that [a] no gain could ensue and (:) the offenders would be punished (by having to bid in the dark).

 

Now, there was no question of "equity" involved in any of this. The notions were more primitive: the penalty for doing wrong combined an element of restitution with an element of deterrence (you gave the opponents their trick back, and you were penalized another trick to encourage you not to commit the same offence again).

 

Of course, this would not do - it became clear (if it was not clear already) that even after the prescribed penalty was paid, some revokes could gain more than the trick transferred by way of restitution and the trick transferred by way of deterrence.

 

What was done about this? Well, by that time an enlightened society had chosen to distinguish between deliberate and inadvertent transgressions; so that if you swindled the opponents out of three tricks (with or without meaning to), you didn't have to give them anything by way of a deterrent in order to prevent you from trying the same swindle again. If on the other hand you swindled them out of no tricks at all (as by showing out, then showing back in again while an opponent ran a solid suit), you were punished to the full extent of the Law. That extent is now one trick rather than the two it used to be, but whatever else it is, it is not "equitable".

 

This is, of course, hopeless. But it is the Law, and (as with many of the other Laws to which I have alluded), it is an unacceptable compromise between one of two equally tenable positions. The first (and the easier) of these is to cast the Laws as if everyone were potentially a cheat. The second (and the more difficult) is to cast the Laws as if everyone were determined to follow them to the letter, and to ignore transgressions by calling them all "irregularities" rather than "infractions", and to refer to "rectification" rather than "penalty". Moreover, one refers - as Bluejak refers in his more lucid moments - not to a "cheat" but, pardon him, to someone who has "inadvertently" failed to follow the rules.

 

Almost all games have rules that follow the first of the paths outlined above. Bridge is the only game I know that follows the second. Hinc, as someone wisely remarked, illae lacrimae.

On a point of facts: The earliest form of the revoke law AFAIK ordered the transfer of three tricks!

 

Then it once happened that a player deliberately revoked in a 3NT contract in order to promote a stopper (for instance did not play his stiff K under opponents' Ace), made his 12 tricks, gave away the three penalty tricks and made his contract.

 

On being questioned Ely Culbertson confirmed that this was indeed the law.

 

Subsequently the laws were amended to include the equivalent of todays Law 64C and at the same time reducing the "standard" penalty for a revoke to two tricks (which again later has been amended).

 

Many people seem to forget that bridge is a game for gentlemen and ladies where the prime concern is to obtain a "fair" result, i.e. to rectify rather than penalize every irregularity.