Player with no trumps ruffs.

[Cascade]

I don't have the hand with me here.

 

But today declarer was in a 5=2 fit and played out three rounds of trumps - losing the third to LHO while RHO opponent showed out.

 

RHO had revoked. I was asked to rule based on equity since declarer lost control of the hand. It turned out after looking through the play of the entire hand that the two trick penalty prescribed by law actually exactly restored equity.

 

However something interesting happened on the revoke trick:

 

Declarer led a diamond from dummy towards his ace. RHO ruffed. But declarer contributed his ♦A anyway not noticing the trump and not expecting it as RHO had already shown out of trumps. Declarer could have played a low losing diamond and kept the ace for later.

 

Is declarer entitled to any additional compensation for throwing his ace to this impossible ruff? Or is the playing of the ace subsequent to the ruff a careless play for which declarer is wholely responsible?

[gordontd]

I find your description puzzling. Unless you reversed the order of events, such that the revoke happened before the three rounds of trumps were drawn, there shouldn't have been a two-trick penalty ("rectification"), and the trick you call the revoke trick would not have been the revoke trick. But you can't have reversed the order of events, because you say "RHO had already shown out of trumps".

 

However the answer to the underlying question is "how many tricks would have been made had there been no revoke?"

[pran]

I find your description puzzling. Unless you reversed the order of events, such that the revoke happened before the three rounds of trumps were drawn, there shouldn't have been a two-trick penalty ("rectification"), and the trick you call the revoke trick would not have been the revoke trick. But you can't have reversed the order of events, because you say "RHO had already shown out of trumps".

 

However the answer to the underlying question is "how many tricks would have been made had there been no revoke?"

I suspect he was (incorrectly) using the 1997 law book instead of the 2007 law book. With the 1997 laws his description makes sense.

 

And I agree that this case must be resolved using Law 64C.

 

The statement "since declarer lost control of the hand" is in itself no valid reason for making an equity (Law 64C) ruling, but once he can show that he (probably) lost more tricks from the revoke than the (in this case) one trick rectification he would automatically receive then Law 64C kicks in.

[campboy]

If I understand it correctly, the situation is that the revoke penalty restored equity, but that declarer had the chance to do even better had he been aware of the revoke before it became obvious. That situation presumably isn't uncommon; I don't see any reason why declarer should get any extra tricks.

[helene_t]

Maybe this "serious error or wild/gambling" phrase applies to declarer's failure to notice the ruff?

 

If so, I don't think it is one. It is perfectly normal not to expect someone who has shown out of trumps to ruff.

 

So I would adjust on the basis of declarer making a trick later with ♦A if that is what he would have done if he had noticed the ruff and played low.

[axman]

I don't have the hand with me here.

 

But today declarer was in a 5=2 fit and played out three rounds of trumps - losing the third to LHO while RHO opponent showed out.

 

RHO had revoked.  I was asked to rule based on equity since declarer lost control of the hand. It turned out after looking through the play of the entire hand that the two trick penalty prescribed by law actually exactly restored equity.

 

However something interesting happened on the revoke trick:

 

Declarer led a diamond from dummy towards his ace.  RHO ruffed.  But declarer contributed his ♦A anyway not noticing the trump and not expecting it as RHO had already shown out of trumps.  Declarer could have played a low losing diamond and kept the ace for later.

 

Is declarer entitled to any additional compensation for throwing his ace to this impossible ruff?  Or is the playing of the ace subsequent to the ruff a careless play for which declarer is wholely responsible?

I am curious how a player revokes during a trump trick and manages to win it.

 

To illuminate why I am curious here is an excerpt from a ruling at a tournament last week:

 

'THere's been an established revoke.'

'offender didn't win the trick, but won a trick with a card he could have

played- that is a two trick transf.....'

'please read the law'

'you are wrong'

'I want the law read'

'you are wrong'..

...'you are wrong'...

...'you are wrong'...

...'you are wrong'...

 

Four minutes later....

'you are wrong....L64 says.....'

'...L64 says......'

'But, but, but- there is equity...'

 

four minutes later...

declarer awarded the rest.

 

elapsed time: ten minutes

 

I’ll leave it to you to verify what L64 says <g>.

 

 

However, getting to the heart of the query:

 

64C When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

 

There is a reference to damage for which L12 is relevant:

 

12B1 Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(:(.

 

Note that it provides the specification for the existence of damage, and, does not quantify it- and that ought to cause much grief to somebody.

 

To recap. If after a revoke the NOS obtains a result less than the expectation absent the revoke they have been damaged.

 

If you haven’t surmised yet that there is difficulty then it isn’t helpful to advise that there is. Namely that the compensation for all established revokes fall within L64A and B.

 

And- however…..there is L64C that overrides L64A&B- when? When the TD deems- deems what? The NOS is insufficiently compensated. Which begs the question: just how does the OS know that the NOS is IC [insufficiently compensated]? After all L64A&B specify proper compensation. Answer: they rely upon the TD. And the TD needs no reason to rule IC or SC.

 

But what we do know that once IC is ruled then L12 governs:

 

But what we don’t know is the standard of redress, compensation, removal of advantage, or whatever:

 

Eg in the team trials last night Gittleman in a tight match and after describing his hand to a T during a 2C auction bid a grand knowing the hands were misfitting-- for a big loss. As world class players do silly things, then just how many silly things are to be imputed upon the revoking side for a score adjusted for IC?

 

You see, or maybe you don’t. the TD merely supplies a score in place of the result, he isn’t called upon to justify. And there is no basis, no standard to which can be compared to dispute it.

 

Anyway. Getting to one of Wayne’s assertions about what he says is equity for the hand. Just who is to say that your standard of equity is the correct one, or even the appropriate one, to use? Well, the law says that it does not matter, after all.

 

And just a bit of food for thought, consider the following, a dangerous sequence of words that the WBF has assiduously avoided:

 

For the opponents of a revoker, if one or more verified revokes have [a] discouraged an advantageous line of play or made unwinnable, tricks otherwise winnable absent the revoke and the number of such tricks are greater than the trick transfer afforded by L64A then upon application for indemnity the director shall instead award such tricks. The right to indemnification expires if attention is not drawn to the revoke prior to the earlier of the NOS calling to the next board or the end of the round; however, if attention was drawn to the failure to follow suit that was in fact a revoke, and the contestant did not subsequently disclose the revoke in timely a fashion, the period of time that the revoke may be adjudicated is provided by L79

[bluejak]

I find the thread confusing so I am going [i think] to answer the underlying question with reference to something that happened in the Beds 1-day Swiss Teams yesterday.

 

On dummy's ♦A declarer discarded.

 

Later his LHO led a diamond, RHO played the J [not bothering to play the king] and was dismayed that declarer won with the queen!

 

Of course the defence got a trick for the revoke. This meant declarer made eight tricks, nine less a penalty trick. If there had been no revoke it was agreed that eight tricks were cold.

 

But the defence wanted another trick: they said that if they had known there was a revoke they would have played the ♦K not the ♦J: now declarer makes eight tricks less one for the revoke: seven.

 

The TD gave them eight: they wanted to appeal: I talked them out of it.

 

Now, I think the OP contains a similar question. Should there be an adjustment because of playing wrong because they did not realise there was a revoke?

 

The answer is no. The revoke Laws give two possibilities: either the TD rules a number of penalty tricks, 0, 1 or 2, usually 1. Or he uses an adjustment to restore the equity that existed before the revoke. So whether it is fair or not to adjust based on what would have happened if the non-revokers knew what was happening plus penalty tricks, there is no Law saying so: end of story.

[StevenG]

I find the thread confusing so I am going [i think] to answer the underlying question with reference to something that happened in the Beds 1-day Swiss Teams yesterday.

 

On dummy's ♦A declarer discarded.

 

Later his LHO led a diamond, RHO played the J [not bothering to play the king] and was dismayed that declarer won with the queen!

 

Of course the defence got a trick for the revoke.  This meant declarer made eight tricks, nine less a penalty trick.  If there had been no revoke it was agreed that eight tricks were cold.

 

But the defence wanted another trick: they said that if they had known there was a revoke they would have played the ♦K not the ♦J: now declarer makes eight tricks less one for the revoke: seven.

 

The TD gave them eight: they wanted to appeal: I talked them out of it.

 

I heard this story from EW immediately afterwards. I was told that declarer had already realised she had revoked and had spoken to a TD away from the table. EW seemed to think that they that been told that they were entitled to know that there had been an established revoke, but not what the actual revoke was. (This made no sense to me - if they knew there had been a revoke, why were they not playing with more care?)

 

The actual problems seem to be the one-trick penalty (which would, I assume, have been two tricks under the previous laws) combined with the fact that declarer established the revoke away from the table with informing her opponents.

 

However, I would not be surprised if there was a material error in the facts as I heard them.

[blackshoe]

EW are not entitled to be told there was an established revoke, although they are entitled to figure it out for themselves, if they can. And going away from the table doesn't establish a revoke. Presumably, declarer went away from the table, told the director what had happened, and the director told her that some action she took after revoking (probably leading or playing to the next trick) established the revoke. If the revoke had not been established when she talked to the director, she would have been required to correct it.

[barmar]

Players are not required to draw attention to their own side's irregularities. It sounds like declarer talked to the TD away from the table specifically to find out what her obligations were. When the TD correctly informed her that she didn't have to tell the opponents about the revoke, she played on.

 

The Laws say that the TD can adjust the score if the revoke penalty doesn't restore equity. "Equity" means the result that would have obtained if the revoke hadn't occurred, it doesn't mean the result without declarer winning a trick with a card she could have played when the revoke occurred. Tthe fact that the old Laws gave that trick away as well may make players think so; but if the Lawgivers wanted that, they could have left the revoke penalty the way it was.

[pran]

Players are not required to draw attention to their own side's irregularities. It sounds like declarer talked to the TD away from the table specifically to find out what her obligations were. When the TD correctly informed her that she didn't have to tell the opponents about the revoke, she played on.

 

The Laws say that the TD can adjust the score if the revoke penalty doesn't restore equity. "Equity" means the result that would have obtained if the revoke hadn't occurred, it doesn't mean the result without declarer winning a trick with a card she could have played when the revoke occurred. Tthe fact that the old Laws gave that trick away as well may make players think so; but if the Lawgivers wanted that, they could have left the revoke penalty the way it was.

WBFLC deliberately changed this particular law to what it is now

[bluejak]

Well, I hope so. I would hate to think that the WBFLC accidentally changed the Law to what it is now.