Another interesting occurence

[bid_em_up]

Playing in a 3N contract, I am running a solid six card suit in dummy. I have three, and RHO shows out on the second honor from dummy. On the play of the 3rd card, both LHO and RHO show out. I scratch my head, and continue play. With about three tricks remaining, LHO starts attempting to put his card down without showing it and I ask to see his card. He shows it and each time he has followed suit.

 

On the last trick, he quits the card face down again, and I ask to see the card and state that I believe there has been a revoke. The gentleman gives me a look like he is offended that I could say such a thing, and picks his cards up and shuffles them together.

 

What should occur in a situation like this?

[WellSpyder]

What should occur in a situation like this?

That is easy. The TD should be called and they should be told what has happened. It is then up to the TD to establish whether a revoke has occurred and what penalties might be appropriate over and above rectification for any revoke.

 

Judicial murder, as recommended by dburn in a number of his posts, sounds like it might well be appropriate here, but there are no doubt other penalties the TD might consider instead if he concludes that the defender has tried deliberately to conceal a revoke.

[gwnn]

instead of scratching your head you should have called the director.

[bluejak]

50% of a top PP?

[gwnn]

for the defender or bid_em_up? :)

[Phil]

I thought this only happened in my game. I haven't had something this blatant, but I have come to the table regarding a possible revoke and the offender is sitting there with his arms crossed, his cards shuffled and back in the board.

[blackshoe]

I would investigate. If I can establish there was a revoke, and I'm pretty sure I can, if there was one, I will make the usual ruling on that. As for the attempted concealment, that rates a PP, since a player "may not" do that, and "may not" is a pretty serious prohibition. Half a top seems about right.

[bid_em_up]

instead of scratching your head you should have called the director.

yea yea.

 

Actually, it is my understanding that the director isn't supposed to be called until play of the hand is finished.

[bid_em_up]

I would investigate. If I can establish there was a revoke, and I'm pretty sure I can, if there was one

This is what I would like to find out.

 

How are you going to make this determination? I would say he showed out on the third card, he would say he followed suit.

[blackshoe]

There are four players at the table. Presumably only one of them has mixed their cards. I would reconstruct the play from the three sets of quitted tricks, and the testimony of all four players as to which of the fourth player's cards were played on each trick. The testimony of a player who has apparently tried to conceal a revoke isn't going to be worth as much as the testimony of the other three, btw.

[jnichols]

I've dealt with this a few times as TD.

First I verify that the player in fact did not show his last card and then mixed his cards to hide the revoke.

Then I ask him to provide me with evidence that he did not revoke.

If he can't do that he gets penalized for the revoke.

And a PP.

There were a few players that this happend with once. None twice.

[campboy]

How are you going to make this determination? I would say he showed out on the third card, he would say he followed suit.

Law 66D: "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards my be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer establish the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side." (which includes a swingeing PP under Law 72B3 IMO)

[campboy]

Actually, it is my understanding that the director isn't supposed to be called until play of the hand is finished.

This isn't so. Any player (except dummy) may draw attention to an irregularity during play, and once attention has been drawn to an irregularity the TD must be summoned (law 9).

 

However, you were under no obligation to draw attention to the revoke, and therefore shouldn't lose out in any way for waiting until the end of the board to do so. It is usually in declarer's interest to wait at least until the revoke has been established (ie at least one defender has played to the subsequent trick) before pointing out that someone must have revoked.

[matmat]

so a blatant attempt at cheating only gets punished with 1/2 of a top?

[peachy]

He acted in the way that a person who is hiding his revoke would act. It does not matter what his reason or excuse for shuffling was, it was illegal. Rule for the revoke and give PP for the hiding of the revoke. As the declarer, I would also make a mental note of the face and name, as a person to watch out for at the table in the future.

[blackshoe]

so a blatant attempt at cheating only gets punished with 1/2 of a top?

If you think he deliberately was cheating, then you convene or request an ethics hearing on him, however you do that in your jurisdiction.

[OleBerg]

If a player has shuffled his cards, before a result is agreed upon, I would consider the revoke to be established without second thought or discussion.

[dburn]

I have fond (though in parts somewhat vague) memories of the first congress I played in Ireland, in the town of Portrush. In the words of one of my contemporaries who was there, the qualifying round of the pairs consisted of eighteen pints of Guinness, and it was meandering to a close when I played a hand in 3NT.

 

On the third round of my solid 4-4 club fit both opponents showed out, and neither felt inclined to show back in again when I played a fourth round. A diamond had been discarded by my right-hand opponent from four of them, so I next ran that suit (which had started life as ♦Qx facing ♦AKxx). On the last diamond RHO evinced much discomfort before pitching a spade, establishing a low card for me in that suit also and giving me the rest of the tricks. A heart discard would have had a similar effect, and of course the poor fellow could not part with his club because then I would have noticed that he had revoked.

 

Since I had lost no trick from the third round of clubs onward there seemed little point in summoning the Director from the bar, especially since I could not trust myself to remain upright for long enough to do so. I never did discover the name of my opponent, which in retrospect is something of a pity, for I am sure that bridge historians would be glad to give proper place to the only man ever to be squeezed in four suits.

[OleBerg]

I have fond (though in parts somewhat vague) memories of the first congress I played in Ireland, in the town of Portrush. In the words of one of my contemporaries who was there, the qualifying round of the pairs consisted of eighteen pints of Guinness, and it was meandering to a close when I played a hand in 3NT.

 

On the third round of my solid 4-4 club fit both opponents showed out, and neither felt inclined to show back in again when I played a fourth round. A diamond had been discarded by my right-hand opponent from four of them, so I next ran that suit (which had started life as ♦Qx facing ♦AKxx). On the last diamond RHO evinced much discomfort before pitching a spade, establishing a low card for me in that suit also and giving me the rest of the tricks. A heart discard would have had a similar effect, and of course the poor fellow could not part with his club because then I would have noticed that he had revoked.

 

Since I had lost no trick from the third round of clubs onward there seemed little point in summoning the Director from the bar, especially since I could not trust myself to remain upright for long enough to do so. I never did discover the name of my opponent, which in retrospect is something of a pity, for I am sure that bridge historians would be glad to give proper place to the only man ever to be squeezed in four suits.

Made my day start with a genuine and good-natured laugh. Thx.

[jeremy69]

so a blatant attempt at cheating only gets punished with 1/2 of a top?

 

Yes. If as TD we decide the actions merit a PP I don't think 1/2 a top sends a strong enough message. I'd be tempted to say you don't want someone like this in your club.

Perhaps dancing on one leg and singing the Birdy Song?

[bluejak]

I do not give half a top PP for blatant cheating - but I do not assume this was blatant cheating. It was the action a cheat might take, true.

[shyams]

I do not give half a top PP for blatant cheating - but I do not assume this was blatant cheating. It was the action a cheat might take, true.

To bring further focus on semantics, the post by matmat does not read "blatant cheating" but instead reads "blatant attempt at cheating"

[bluejak]

Fair enough, but it is the word blatant that worries me. As a TD I give a PP for actions that do the various things in Law 90. If I am sure something is cheating [and the word 'blatant' sounds like it, and I think attempting cheating is as bad as cheating], then I refer it.

[blackshoe]

Whether you call it "blatant cheating" or "a blatant attempt at cheating", you are labeling the offender a cheat. If, OTOH, you take the Probst approach, as David does, you are saying that you are not ruling on the basis he's a cheat, but on the basis that he has done something, perhaps in all innocence, that a cheat would do. There is a difference.