Established revoke followed by subsequent opposing revoke

[alphatango]

I was called to the table recently, and informed that a defender had revoked. I discovered it had been established, and explained the relevant laws. Play then continued until trick 12. At this point, declarer revoked by ruffing with his second-last card, then led his last card. The defenders drew attention to the revoke, so I required that it be corrected (62D).

 

I was about to transfer the appropriate number of tricks for the defensive revoke (two, in this case) to declarer, when I hazily remembered something about revokes by both sides. Checking TFLB, I found 64B7: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke...when both sides have revoked on the same board."

 

It appears, then, that once declarer revokes here (even if he doesn't establish it!), he is no longer entitled to the 64A rectification, but is limited to the 64C equity adjustment. So I ruled that the equitable one trick only was transferred. Did I miss anything?

[blackshoe]

Don't think so.

[jhenrikj]

According to Ton Koiijman both revokes must be established for 64B7 to apply. In this case the revoke was established so the ruling is correct.

[blackshoe]

Another law that needs a rewrite. :(

 

Ton, being Ton, is no doubt correct as to how we should interpret the law. The problem is that the law doesn't actually say that. :blink: :(

[alphatango]

Hmm, thanks for reminding me about Ton's commentary. Unfortunately, he seems to directly contradict the laws on this point; and as I understand it, the commentary is unofficial. I assume this means we have to rule strictly according to the book until the WBFLC issues an official correction of some sort.

 

I don't really understand his reference to "the heading of Law 64B", which in my copy is "No Rectification".

[jhenrikj]

According to the WBF website the commentary is issued by WBFLC. It says nowhere it's unoffocial.

 

If the the second revoke is not established you can not apply any part of 64B since it only deals with established revokes.

[pran]

According to the WBF website the commentary is issued by WBFLC. It says nowhere it's unoffocial.

 

If the the second revoke is not established you can not apply any part of 64B since it only deals with established revokes.

A revoke in trick 12 becomes established if the offending side leads of plays to trick 13 (this was the case in OP), or if play ceases because of a claim or concession.

 

Therefore the revoke in trick 12 must be corrected as prescribed in Law 62D, the rectification for the previous revoke (by the other side) is void as prescribed in Law 64B7 and is replaced by a rectification as prescribed in Law 64C.

[gordontd]

According to the WBF website the commentary is issued by WBFLC. It says nowhere it's unoffocial.

This is odd. The minutes of the WBF Laws Committee meeting on 12th October 2010 say:

 

3. Referring to Ton Kooijman’s Appendix conveying his opinions on

matters of law on the WBF web site it was agreed that the mention of

his title as chairman of the committee shall be removed.

 

And yet it has not been.

[jhenrikj]

A revoke in trick 12 becomes established if the offending side leads of plays to trick 13 (this was the case in OP), or if play ceases because of a claim or concession.

 

Therefore the revoke in trick 12 must be corrected as prescribed in Law 62D, the rectification for the previous revoke (by the other side) is void as prescribed in Law 64B7 and is replaced by a rectification as prescribed in Law 64C.

 

That we all agree on, see my first response to the OP.

 

What we do not agree on is if the opinion that both revokes has to be established is in the laws or not. Ton's opinion, and I agree with him, is that we can't look at 64B to see what happens after the second revoke if that revoke is not established since 64B only applies after established revokes.

[jhenrikj]

 

And yet it has not been.

 

It hasn't? I can find no mention at all of he being the chairman ....

 

The WBF Laws Committee has issued a Laws Commentary advising how some of the Laws should be interpreted.

 

The line above is what the website says, so according to that I think that the commentary is official. It would be very strange to issue a minute saying that something that does not exist should be removed so my guess is that it is removed.

[gordontd]

It hasn't? I can find no mention at all of he being the chairman ....

It says:

 

Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge

by Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee

[axman]

That we all agree on, see my first response to the OP.

 

What we do not agree on is if the opinion that both revokes has to be established is in the laws or not. Ton's opinion, and I agree with him, is that we can't look at 64B to see what happens after the second revoke if that revoke is not established since 64B only applies after established revokes.

 

To understand [in part] the effect of law consider the following:

 

At T2 W revokes and corrects before it is established; and N [dummy] revokes and corrects before it is established. Then at T3 E revokes and it is established. L64B7 provides that there are no penalty tricks for established revokes during this board.

[jhenrikj]

To understand [in part] the effect of law consider the following:

 

At T2 W revokes and corrects before it is established; and N [dummy] revokes and corrects before it is established. Then at T3 E revokes and it is established. L64B7 provides that there are no penalty tricks for established revokes during this board.

 

No, since the first revokes are not established the last revoke will be rectified. Only when both sides have established revokes 64B7 applies.

[axman]

No, since the first revokes are not established the last revoke will be rectified. Only when both sides have established revokes 64B7 applies.

 

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke when both sides have revoked on the same board.

 

Have both sides revoked on the same board? Yes. Therefore, no established revokes during the board have penalty tricks of 64A.

[pran]

That we all agree on, see my first response to the OP.

 

What we do not agree on is if the opinion that both revokes has to be established is in the laws or not. Ton's opinion, and I agree with him, is that we can't look at 64B to see what happens after the second revoke if that revoke is not established since 64B only applies after established revokes.

Isn't that obvious?

 

Law 62A applies to any revoke that has not been established before the offender becomes aware of his offence, and also to any revoke in trick 12 whether or not that revoke is established.

 

Law 64A begins with the text: "When a revoke is established:" and therefore applies only to established revokes. (Law 64A is overridden by Law 62D in the case of revoke in trick 12).

 

Law 64B begins with the text: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:" so Law 64B is an exception from Law 64A and therefore cannot possibly apply unless Law 64A would first seem appliccable.

[alphatango]

I think that Ton and jhenrikj are arguing that where:

 

Revoke 1 by NS is established

Revoke 2 by EW is not established (and is corrected)

 

then, at the end of play, we apply 64A to Revoke 1, and 64B does not apply because Revoke 2 was never established.

 

I'm not sure which words in the law are being used to support this view, though. It seems to me that 64B applies whenever 64A is invoked.

 

(By the way, I do not think 64A is overridden by 62D. I think it is overridden by the wording of 64B6: no 64A rectification "if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick".)

[jhenrikj]

I think that Ton and jhenrikj are arguing that where:

 

Revoke 1 by NS is established

Revoke 2 by EW is not established (and is corrected)

 

then, at the end of play, we apply 64A to Revoke 1, and 64B does not apply because Revoke 2 was never established.

 

I'm not sure which words in the law are being used to support this view, though. It seems to me that 64B applies whenever 64A is invoked.

 

(By the way, I do not think 64A is overridden by 62D. I think it is overridden by the wording of 64B6: no 64A rectification "if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick".)

 

What you say is that if I in T2 revokes in spades, but corrects it at once and then in T3 once again revokes in spades, this time it becomes established, there is no rectification for the second revoke because it's a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player?

 

The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes.

 

The other logical way to look at it is that after an unestablished revoke is corrected, that player has no longer revoked because a revoke is "not following suit" and after the correction the player has followed suit, so he has not longer revoked.

[alphatango]

The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes.

 

Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree that's what the law says, but I think I understand why you and Ton are interpreting it the way you do.

[pran]

[...]

(By the way, I do not think 64A is overridden by 62D. I think it is overridden by the wording of 64B6: no 64A rectification "if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick".)

Law 64A is a general law appliccable to established revokes.

Law 62D is a spesific law that applies to revokes in trick 12 (and explicitly whether or not the revoke is established).

 

We have a firm rule that specific laws take precedence over general laws.

 

Law 64B6 will apply only if the revoke in trick 12 was not "discovered" until after all four hands had been restored to the board.

[pran]

[...]

The other logical way to look at it is that after an unestablished revoke is corrected, that player has no longer revoked because a revoke is "not following suit" and after the correction the player has followed suit, so he has not longer revoked.

Precisely!

[bluejak]

LAW 64: PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE

 

B. No Rectification

 

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

 

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

Have I missed something? Is this not a matter of complete clarity, unlike many laws? There is no rectification for an established revoke as in A - ie penalty tricks - if the other side revoke, whether established or not. I am not convinced that is what they meant, but how can it mean anything else?

 

:ph34r:

 

Law 64A is a general law appliccable to established revokes.

Law 62D is a spesific law that applies to revokes in trick 12 (and explicitly whether or not the revoke is established).

 

We have a firm rule that specific laws take precedence over general laws.

Oh yes: which Law says this?

 

:ph34r:

 

The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes.

Not at all. Headings are not part of the Laws. If they meant established revokes they would says so, as they do in

 

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

[blackshoe]

The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes.

 

No. The word "revoke" means "revoke". In much of Law 64, the phrase "established revoke" is followed by "the revoke" [my emphasis] which clearly refers to a revoke that has been established, but there are two ambiguous cases in Law 64B: "if it is a subsequent revoke…" in 64B2 and "when both sides have revoked…" in 64B7. In both cases it is unclear whether the reference to the other revoke implies that it must have been established.

 

I do like the argument that once a player has corrected an unestablished revoke, it is as if that revoke never happened. That argument certainly clarifies both cases above. But the argument that all references to "revoke" in Law 64 are by necessity references to "established revokes" is just wrong.

[pran]

[...]

We have a firm rule that specific laws take precedence over general laws.

 

Oh yes: which Law says this?

 

No law at all and I didn't say that either.

 

But I am quite confident that you are at least as familiar with WBFLC minutes etc. as I am, and on that basis I find your question extremely surprising.

 

Are you just looking for another quarrel?

 

Well, I shall not be participating.

[blackshoe]

Items 2 and 3 of the minutes of 8 September 2009, in São Paolo.

 

There was apparently some discussion about this, at least one member being of a different opinion.

[bluejak]

No law at all and I didn't say that either.

 

But I am quite confident that you are at least as familiar with WBFLC minutes etc. as I am, and on that basis I find your question extremely surprising.

 

Are you just looking for another quarrel?

 

Well, I shall not be participating.

I am merely tired of assertions that you make which are incorrect. It is true that in many situations the normal approach is as you say. But yet again you produce a didactic and incorrect rule and mislead many of our readers. There are certainly situations where it is quite clear from the actual wording that this "rule" is not correct and should not be followed.