Revoke and "bad" defense

[wyman]

ACBL-land, w/w MP. Club game.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk93h853dak3c9852&w=sa6hkt97dqjt75c76&n=sjt72haqj62d9862c&e=sq854h4d4cakqjt43&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1cp1hp1sp1np3nppp&p=sjs4s3sac6s2cac9h4h3hkhahqs5]399|300[/hv]

 

T1: ♠J, 4, 3, A

T2: ♣6, ♠2, A, 9

T3: ♥4, 3, K, A

T4: ♥Q, ♠5, 5, ♦7!!!!

 

T5: ♥J, ♦4, 8, T

 

Now north continues a heart, and declarer claims 10, adjusted to 8 by the playing director due to the "-2 for revoke and subsequently winning tricks." South asks for a ruling (to be given after everyone -- in particular the director -- has played the board). NS +50

 

If you want comments from the players, North pointed out the revoke as soon as West claimed, and South called the director.

 

North is a mediocre club player, obviously flummoxed by (and indignant about) the revoke, and he says "well, when he shows out of hearts, I thought 1♥ could have been a psyche, so I thought partner had a lot of hearts over there." When you ask him what he thought when declarer showed up with the T, he says "well I didn't know what was going on at that point."

 

South says "we obviously were damaged, since if there was no revoke, partner will cash ♥QJ and shift to a pointed suit, probably a spade since I played the ♣9, suit preference, though it's not clear that partner ever pays attention to such things." South thinks NS is entitled to 3 hearts, 2 spades, and 2 diamonds. NS +150

 

West says "I revoked, but you can't just stop playing bridge, and leading a heart is just ridiculous. The defense was so terrible, I think the contract should be making to be honest, but at the very least NS deserve no further adjustment" NS -400/+50.

 

Ruling?

[iviehoff]

First, we need to point out that the ruling of 2 tricks transferred for the revoke is wrong. The revoke card did not win a trick, so it should only be 1. The claim is correct, so declarer made 10 tricks. The automatic revoke penalty is 1 trick, subject to Law 64C which reads

 

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 the question is, what damage was caused by the revoke? I'm inclined to argue that that without the revoke North would never have cashed the next heart, and not been placed in the confused position which led to his unfortunate choice of play. So for me, equity is something like what South said, certain for EW.

 

Now this can be varied for NS if we think N's play of a 4th heart is a "serious error unrelated to the irregularity" under 12C1(b). But I think the kind of "serious error" the law-makers have in mind here is rather worse than this, and even if that were not the case, I do not think this error is unrelated to the irregularity. But even if it was a serious error, EW would not obtain any relief for it in the adjustment.

[axman]

ACBL-land, w/w MP. Club game.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk93h853dak3c9852&w=sa6hkt97dqjt75c76&n=sjt72haqj62d9862c&e=sq854h4d4cakqjt43&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1cp1hp1sp1np3nppp&p=sjs4s3sac6s2cac9h4h3hkhahqs5]399|300[/hv]

 

T1: ♠J, 4, 3, A

T2: ♣6, ♠2, A, 9

T3: ♥4, 3, K, A

T4: ♥Q, ♠5, 5, ♦7!!!!

 

T5: ♥J, ♦4, 8, T

 

Now north continues a heart, and declarer claims 10, adjusted to 8 by the playing director due to the "-2 for revoke and subsequently winning tricks." South asks for a ruling (to be given after everyone -- in particular the director -- has played the board). NS +50

 

If you want comments from the players, North pointed out the revoke as soon as West claimed, and South called the director.

 

North is a mediocre club player, obviously flummoxed by (and indignant about) the revoke, and he says "well, when he shows out of hearts, I thought 1♥ could have been a psyche, so I thought partner had a lot of hearts over there." When you ask him what he thought when declarer showed up with the T, he says "well I didn't know what was going on at that point."

 

South says "we obviously were damaged, since if there was no revoke, partner will cash ♥QJ and shift to a pointed suit, probably a spade since I played the ♣9, suit preference, though it's not clear that partner ever pays attention to such things." South thinks NS is entitled to 3 hearts, 2 spades, and 2 diamonds. NS +150

 

West says "I revoked, but you can't just stop playing bridge, and leading a heart is just ridiculous. The defense was so terrible, I think the contract should be making to be honest, but at the very least NS deserve no further adjustment" NS -400/+50.

 

Ruling?

 

The NS expectation immediately prior to the revoke was SA9 DAK HAQJ while immediately afterwards it was SA9 DAK HAQJ. That NS did not take such tricks is solely** attributable to their skill and no other reason. That declarer achieved tricks with the HT9 while N achieved tricks with the HAQJ suggesting that the deck had fourteen hearts is attributable solely to W playing a diamond on a heart trick when he held a heart. If it had not been for the revoke then declarer could only have taken 9 tricks instead of 10.

 

**North says "well I didn't know what was going on at that point." leads to the conclusion that the cards W played did not matter [it being relevant that W followed to the third round of hearts] to N who was staring at 6 more clubs in dummy. Ergo, the revoke had no [relevant] effect on N.

 

The score afforded by L64A is one of declarer’s ten tricks is transferred; and the score afforded by L64C/L12 is 9 tricks to declarer he would have taken as if he did not have a heart after the fourth round.

[campboy]

I do not understand the connection between the revoke and North's defence. As Ivan says, the automatic penalty is one trick, not two. Had the same defence been perpetrated without the revoke -- and I see no reason to think it would not have been -- declarer would have made nine tricks, so no 64C adjustment is required.

[bluejak]

Not much sympathy for North, eh?

 

Players get flustered: mediocre club players especially. If you assume that he would have defended the same way without the revoke you may be right but I do not think it obvious.

 

Of course, this is the ACBL. Over here I might easily be tempted to weight an adjustment, but that is not possible.

 

As for SEWoG I just do not believe you should be using Law 12C1B where mediocre club players are involved.

[nige1]

Not much sympathy for North, eh? Players get flustered: mediocre club players especially. If you assume that he would have defended the same way without the revoke you may be right but I do not think it obvious. Of course, this is the ACBL. Over here I might easily be tempted to weight an adjustment, but that is not possible. As for SEWoG I just do not believe you should be using Law 12C1B where mediocre club players are involved.

Agree with Bluejak. Declarer showed out on the second heart, so LHO may reasonably decide to cash six heart tricks -- not paying much attention to declarer's plays.

[BunnyGo]

I agree with Nigel about agreeing with Bluejack. If at trick 5 North had led a small heart, it would have been a not unreasonable play that would have had the same cost in tricks. Playing the Jack and maybe seeing that declarer followed suit (it's wrong but I don't think SEWoG to not really pay attention to the discard at this point) should not affect the value of these plays.

 

Out of curiosity, If declarer's heart suit had been just the King-Ten doubleton then if North now makes a bad switch on this sequence (because he doesn't know what is going on) he would be equally harmed. Is the defender supposed to guess which of these two situations he's in? Is he always granted this "second chance" because the revoke has spoiled the hand?

[jallerton]

I do not understand the connection between the revoke and North's defence. As Ivan says, the automatic penalty is one trick, not two. Had the same defence been perpetrated without the revoke -- and I see no reason to think it would not have been -- declarer would have made nine tricks, so no 64C adjustment is required.

 

Imagine that you are defending a hand. Declarer shows out when a heart is led. Do you not plan the rest of the defence on the basis that declarer has no hearts left in his hand?

 

Now imagine that you are North in the featured hand, but partner and declarer both follow to 3 rounds of hearts. Would you not count the heart suit and deduce that there is one (master) heart outstanding? Would you not now seek further evidence such as the auction to help you decide which player has the last heart and which player holds ♦A?

 

I also agree with Bluejak's comments.

[lamford]

Imagine that you are defending a hand. Declarer shows out when a heart is led. Do you not plan the rest of the defence on the basis that declarer has no hearts left in his hand?

 

Now imagine that you are North in the featured hand, but partner and declarer both follow to 3 rounds of hearts. Would you not count the heart suit and deduce that there is one (master) heart outstanding? Would you not now seek further evidence such as the auction to help you decide which player has the last heart and which player holds ♦A?

 

I also agree with Bluejak's comments.

I agree with this, and it is up to the TD to decide what would have happened without the infraction. "the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated" seems the relevant part of 64C. Whether they were or not from the point of view of Deep Finesse is irrelevant.

[Trinidad]

I agree with the above, particularly with Bluejak's statement:

 

As for SEWoG I just do not believe you should be using Law 12C1B where mediocre club players are involved.

 

Rik

[campboy]

Imagine that you are defending a hand. Declarer shows out when a heart is led. Do you not plan the rest of the defence on the basis that declarer has no hearts left in his hand?

Well, in general if it is clear that a player has either psyched or revoked then I consider both possibilities, and I imagine you do too. But if I planned the defence on the basis of declarer having no hearts left I would obviously have to reconsider when he showed up with another heart.

Now imagine that you are North in the featured hand, but partner and declarer both follow to 3 rounds of hearts. Would you not count the heart suit and deduce that there is one (master) heart outstanding? Would you not now seek further evidence such as the auction to help you decide which player has the last heart and which player holds ♦A?

Of course, just as if I were North and declarer showed out on the second round of hearts but followed to the third I would count the heart suit, deduce that there are two hearts outstanding, one of which is master, and consider the auction to help me decide where those hearts and the ♦A are.

[mycroft]

And are you 100%, 100.0% sure you'd even *notice* it was a heart, and not another non-round red card?

 

I'd say I'm about 98.5% sure. That is, I think I miss maybe one in 200 revokes at my table. That's about one a year. Is it truly a Serious Error worth removing Law 12 protection to not check declarer's discards when one *knows* that the contract is down, as long as one unblocks the suit? Okay, maybe here when west *bid* them (so, okay, I'm 99.5% sure), but people have psyched before, no?

[campboy]

And are you 100%, 100.0% sure you'd even *notice* it was a heart, and not another non-round red card?

If North had failed to notice what card had been played I might rule differently. But the director asked the right questions, and North's answer (that he "didn't know what was going on" when declarer showed up with the ♥10) seems to me to contain the implicit admission that he had noticed that it was a heart.

[wyman]

If North had failed to notice what card had been played I might rule differently. But the director asked the right questions, and North's answer (that he "didn't know what was going on" when declarer showed up with the ♥10) seems to me to contain the implicit admission that he had noticed that it was a heart.

 

He did notice it was a heart; sorry if I've misled anyone. This was never a question in my mind. My personal feeling is that north thought that it was free to lead a heart *in case* it was a psyche, since he thought the board would be adjusted to the appropriate score after the revoke. But this is strictly conjecture, and I am 100% sure north doesn't know the laws concerning revokes.

 

In either case, there's pretty much no question in my mind that north would have gotten this right (at least shifting to *something*) were it not for the revoke, whether this affects the ruling or not.

[iviehoff]

In either case, there's pretty much no question in my mind that north would have gotten this right (at least shifting to *something*) were it not for the revoke, whether this affects the ruling or not.

Does it affect the ruling? Yes, it is the key factor in deciding what the ruling is. You believe that without the revoke, he gets it right. So the ruling in equity is to rule that he will get it right without the revoke.

 

You note that his choice of play after he has observed the discarder later following might have been a double shot on the assumption he was going to get a ruling if the play worked out badly. But double shots are not illegal, nor are they grounds (any more) to modify a ruling.

 

As an irrelevant digression, when I see someone discard and then later follow suit (especially if they followed colour), several possibities occur to me that have not been mentioned. (1) I might have been "seeing things", and they actually followed all the way through. (2) They missorted their hand and thought they were following suit with the missorted card. (3) They thought the suit was being run and had planned a later discard, but inadvertently reversed the order of the follow and the discard. All of these things have happened.

[bluejak]

The last twice I have known there was a revoke there wasn't: I was showing a basic inability to watch and count. While I would have no sympathy whatever for myself or any of my peers who did this, I do think we must allow more sympathy for non-offenders who are mediocre club players. When they play bridge they do awful things. When their opponents break the rules they should get the benefit of any doubt, especially in view of the fact that when confused they do more awful things than normal.

[Vampyr]

That is, I think I miss maybe one in 200 revokes at my table. That's about one a year.

 

Do you really see 200 revokes in a year? Four per week? Where do you play? I see a revoke in one in 30 sessions, at the most.

[axman]

Do you really see 200 revokes in a year? Four per week? Where do you play? I see a revoke in one in 30 sessions, at the most.

 

It's not even noteworthy when 8 revokes occur at my table in a session, nor is it particularly unusual to see four revokes in the course of a board.

[mycroft]

yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if I see one revoke a session. Many of them are revokes from dummy, of course. But sure, maybe I'm a little high on the number. I'd say I do miss about one a year.

[Vampyr]

It's not even noteworthy when 8 revokes occur at my table in a session, nor is it particularly unusual to see four revokes in the course of a board.

 

 

yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if I see one revoke a session. Many of them are revokes from dummy, of course. But sure, maybe I'm a little high on the number. I'd say I do miss about one a year.

 

Wow. You guys must play bridge in some sort of Bizzaro World.

[jnichols]

It's not even noteworthy when 8 revokes occur at my table in a session, nor is it particularly unusual to see four revokes in the course of a board.

My 5 year old grandson plays better than this - Not Bridge (yet) but other card games

[BunnyGo]

My 5 year old grandson plays better than this - Not Bridge (yet) but other card games

 

Yeah, but unlike my grandfather (a formerly great bridge player who still wins most events I play with him) he's not half blind and suffering from dementia. Causes him to revoke at least once a session with me.

[mycroft]

Well, with caveats as to "the plural of anecdote...":

 

I had my one revoke at my table last night. Immediately noticed, automatically corrected, dealt with on the next round of the suit she thought was going to be played, no problem.

 

Now, if you're talking *established* revokes...

[Vampyr]

 

Now, if you're talking *established* revokes...

 

Yes, I would be interested in knowing whether anyone sees more than 2 or three of those a year...

[suprgrover]

Yes, I would be interested in knowing whether anyone sees more than 2 or three of those a year...

 

I had two last week in the game I ran, and average about 4 a month. (But perhaps my club is just strange. Two weeks ago, I had 2 tables out of 18 have the same lead out of turn on the same board--North-South won the first two tricks and North tried to lead the spade 9, but it was partner's lead.)