Revoke Time Limit

[JoAnneM]

ACBL Club Games: What is the latest point at which a revoke can be brought to the attention of the Director?

[dburn]

ACBL Club Games: What is the latest point at which a revoke can be brought to the attention of the Director?

The point just before that at which the Director shuffles off this mortal coil and joins the choir invisible. What the Director can do about the revoke is, of course, quite another thing.

[JoAnneM]

Okay, the round is over, but the game isn't. The next round, which is the last, is winding down and one pair says there was a revoke in the previous round. I was in the process of putting the scores in the computer, so I told them to talk to the other pair and tell me whether they agree, and the trick situation. After a few minutes they come back and tell me there is agreement, the revoke took a trick and they took tricks after, so I assigned a two trick penalty. (this gave the NOS 1st overall in a Unit Game)

 

Now, two days later I am told by the other side that 1) she was interrupted while playing a slam to be questioned about this revoke, and subsequently went down when she should have made the contract, and 2) she did not actually agree - she questioned the actual play and said she would think about it. She came to the conclusion later that she did not revoke and could reconstruct the play.

 

So, I have several issues working here, including my own bad judgement in trusting two flight A players who are my regular partners.

[blackshoe]

There is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.

 

This being a Unit game, when does the correction period end? If there is still time, I would report the circumstances to the Director in Charge, and suggest that the 2 trick penalty be rescinded, which will presumably make some other pair the winners.

 

It seems to me we have a case here were a pair pretty clearly lied to the director. That's worth a disciplinary penalty at least, and quite possibly an ethics hearing. They might even be disqualified from the event. And if either of these two were one of my regular partners, they would cease to be so forthwith.

 

I would be inclined to issue a PP to somebody who interrupted play in progress at another table, especially when it caused a player to mangle the contract (or the defense, as applicable), but the problem here is that you told them to talk to the other pair. I'm sure you didn't mean for them to interrupt play in progress, but you did open the door for it. B)

[pran]

Okay, the round is over, but the game isn't.  The next round, which is the last, is winding down and one pair says there was a revoke in the previous round.  I was in the process of putting the scores in the computer, so I told them to talk to the other pair and tell me whether they agree, and the trick situation.   After a few minutes they come back and tell me there is agreement, the revoke took a trick and they took tricks after, so I assigned a two trick penalty.  (this gave the NOS 1st overall in a Unit Game)

 

Now, two days later I am told by the other side that 1) she was interrupted while playing a slam to be questioned about this revoke, and subsequently went down when she should have made the contract, and 2) she did not actually agree - she questioned the actual play and said she would think about it.  She came to the conclusion later that she did not revoke and could reconstruct the play.

 

So, I have several issues working here, including my own bad judgement in trusting two flight A players who are my regular partners.

Law 64B:

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:

.....

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

 

So it was definitely too late to apply any revoke penalty

 

Law 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.

 

So if the revoke had been confirmed directly to the director by at least one member on the alleged offending side (s)he should have investigated the play for the purpose of establishing "equity" as the likely result had the revoke not occurred, and in case have adjusted correspondingly.

[bluejak]

Okay, the round is over, but the game isn't.  The next round, which is the last, is winding down and one pair says there was a revoke in the previous round.  I was in the process of putting the scores in the computer, so I told them to talk to the other pair and tell me whether they agree, and the trick situation.  After a few minutes they come back and tell me there is agreement, the revoke took a trick and they took tricks after, so I assigned a two trick penalty.  (this gave the NOS 1st overall in a Unit Game)

 

Now, two days later I am told by the other side that 1) she was interrupted while playing a slam to be questioned about this revoke, and subsequently went down when she should have made the contract, and 2) she did not actually agree - she questioned the actual play and said she would think about it.  She came to the conclusion later that she did not revoke and could reconstruct the play.

 

So, I have several issues working here, including my own bad judgement in trusting two flight A players who are my regular partners.

I am afraid that, busy or not, it is your job to investigate, and not the players. No, they should not have interrupted the other players during a hand, but once you instructed them to do your job for you, you had created the situation where bad things may happen.

 

It is not clear at all what happened. Sure, the other side may have said they did not agree, but you have no knowledge what was said, whether there was a misunderstanding or what. I would score it under Director Error, give both sides the benefit of the doubt.

 

But, having said that, there should be no trick penalty anyway: we are merely talking redress for equity. Law 64B5 applies.

 

B)

 

It is a good thing that I do re-read these posts: I take less care on some forums. I found I had originally written:

 

I am afraid that, busty or not, it is your job to investigate, and not the players.

 

:( :D :o :lol:

[JoAnneM]

Thanks for the help. Yes, i realized very quickly that I handled the whole matter badly, but I am going to meet with both pairs tomorrow and settle the matter,then have a private meeting with the person who interrupted the other table, and then lied to me.

[jeremy69]

You may then find the signature at the bottom of your posts sorely tested! :)

[barmar]

Thanks for the help. Yes, i realized very quickly that I handled the whole matter badly, but I am going to meet with both pairs tomorrow and settle the matter,then have a private meeting with the person who interrupted the other table, and then lied to me.

Be careful about accusations of lying. Maybe he misunderstood what the other player said. Or maybe the one who told you that she didn't revoke is lying. It's a "he said, she said" situation, and it would be unfair to start with a bias towards one side.

 

As it's now several days later, and memory is a tricky thing, it may be difficult to reconstruct precisely what happened. Try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt if you can.

[JoAnneM]

I am not going to accuse anyone of anything, this is a friendly club, but I am going to talk to him about interrupting, because he is also a certified director and should have known better.

 

This issue of delayed revoke reporting has never come up here before, and I could have asked another player in the game who is an ACBL Tournament Director, but at the time it seemed like such a simple thing.......

[dburn]

So that I can be clear in my own mind about what is being suggested here, is the notion that:

 

my opponents revoke, but I do not realise this until it is too late to have the score adjusted by means of "rectification";

 

however, if I realise before the end of the Correction Period that a revoke has occurred, I can ask the Director to adjust the score anyway in order to "do equity"?

[bluejak]

Yes.

[Bbradley62]

Unless there are guidelines outside of the Laws, I don't think this is right.

 

no rectification

there is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke:

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

2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64c may apply.

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

6. if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick.

7. when both sides have revoked on the same board.

 

director responsible for equity

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 are seven listed reasons for there being no rectification. One of those seven listed reasons specifically says " Law 64c may apply". Why is this specified in this one case if it could be true for others? It does not appear that reasons 5 and 6 should also be subject to 64C.

[pran]

Unless there are guidelines outside of the Laws, I don't think this is right.

 

no rectification

there is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke:

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

2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64c may apply.

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

6. if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick.

7. when both sides have revoked on the same board.

 

director responsible for equity

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 are seven listed reasons for there being no rectification. One of those seven listed reasons specifically says " Law 64c may apply". Why is this specified in this one case if it could be true for others? It does not appear that reasons 5 and 6 should also be subject to 64C.

What do you think is the meaning of that part of Law 64C that I have emphasized in your quotation above if Law 64C shall not be tried in any (and every) case of an established revoke?

 

edit (added): And we have an explicit minute from WBFLC making it clear that Law 64C shall be applied effectively for both sides in the case of Law 64B7

[campboy]

There are seven listed reasons for there being no rectification. One of those seven listed reasons specifically says " Law 64c may apply". Why is this specified in this one case if it could be true for others? It does not appear that reasons 5 and 6 should also be subject to 64C.

I suspect that it is an attempt (if not a very effective one) to make it clear that Law 64C may be applied separately to the second revoke, and not just to the two revokes together.

 

(The case here is when the first revoke does not help the OS, so if it was the only revoke the NOS would get one extra trick; then a second revoke gains the OS a trick. Law 64C may be applied to restore the number of tricks NOS would have been awarded if the first revoke had happened but the second had not.)

[Bbradley62]

What do you think is the meaning of that part of Law 64C that I have emphasized in your quotation above if Law 64C shall not be tried in any (and every) case of an established revoke?

 

edit (added): And we have an explicit minute from WBFLC making it clear that Law 64C shall be applied effectively for both sides in the case of Law 64B7

The emphasized portion of Law 64C appears to be a reminder that there are some subset(s) of Law 64B where there is a second chance at restoring equity. It does not necessarily mean that this applies in all Law 64B cases.

 

If there is a WBFLC minute that is relevant, then that would qualify as a "guideline out of the Laws" to which I referred, and it might be helpful to see the actual text.

[Bbradley62]

removed Edited July 23, 2010 by Bbradley62

[pran]

What do you think is the meaning of that part of Law 64C that I have emphasized in your quotation above if Law 64C shall not be tried in any (and every) case of an established revoke?

 

edit (added): And we have an explicit minute from WBFLC making it clear that Law 64C shall be applied effectively for both sides in the case of Law 64B7

The emphasized portion of Law 64C appears to be a reminder that there are some subset(s) of Law 64B where there is a second chance at restoring equity. It does not necessarily mean that this applies in all Law 64B cases.

 

If there is a WBFLC minute that is relevant, then that would qualify as a "guideline out of the Laws" to which I referred, and it might be helpful to see the actual text.

We have already been reminded in other threads that the word any in the English language can literally mean "some" (i.e. some, but not neccessarily every possible subset of) or "whichever" (i.e. any subset of with no exception), and so may seem ambiguous.

 

You are free to disbelieve me when I tell you that in Law 64C the word "any" carries the meaning: "every single established revoke regardless of whether it is subject to rectification or not". From my background working with the laws on Bridge I can still assure you that this is the meaning.

[dburn]

The following exchange between your humble servant and the WBF Chief Tournament Director may assist.

 

From: David Burn [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com]

Sent: 23 July 2010 12:35

To: Max Bavin

Subject: Law 64C

 

Ten minutes after the end of a session, I realise that an opponent revoked on a board. Assuming that the opponent will agree that he did so, can I get an adjusted score under Law 64C?

 

David

 

From: Max Bavin [max@ebu.co.uk]

Sent: 23 July 2010 14:30

To: David Burn

Subject: Law 64C

 

Yes, most definitely.

 

64C exists no only to catch those revokes for which the automatic penalty is inadequate compensation, but also the 64B4/5 situations wherein there is no automatic penalty.

 

You just need to be within protest time in order to apply 64C.

 

Max

[pran]

The following exchange between your humble servant and the WBF Chief Tournament Director may assist.

 

From: David Burn [mailto:dalburn@btopenworld.com]

Sent: 23 July 2010 12:35

To: Max Bavin

Subject: Law 64C

 

Ten minutes after the end of a session, I realise that an opponent revoked on a board. Assuming that the opponent will agree that he did so, can I get an adjusted score under Law 64C?

 

David

 

From: Max Bavin [max@ebu.co.uk]

Sent: 23 July 2010 14:30

To: David Burn

Subject: Law 64C

 

Yes, most definitely.

 

64C exists no only to catch those revokes for which the automatic penalty is inadequate compensation, but also the 64B4/5 situations wherein there is no automatic penalty.

 

You just need to be within protest time in order to apply 64C.

 

Max

Seems to me that this is precisely the same understanding as I posted 2 hours earlier? :)

[JoAnneM]

Yay, situation is completely resolved and everyone is happy. There was no revoke, which the nos figured out by themselves, and they apologized profusely to all. The player who did the interrupting apologized to that player, and I told them that I had handled it badly but that my director forum set me straight. And now we all know how to deal with delayed revoke calls.

[bluejak]

Excellent.

[blackshoe]

Glad you got it worked out. :)

[dburn]

Seems to me that this is precisely the same understanding as I posted 2 hours earlier?

Indeed. You have been known to be right, but after all, so is a stopped watch twice a day.