Revoke

[Chris3875]

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hdcq4&w=shdct75&n=sh4dck9&e=shdc]399|300[/hv]

 

Clubs are trumps - East has no cards worth considering

 

The lead is in West and the 5C is led, taken by the 9C, and the 5S thrown off from South.

4H played to the QC, 7C from West.

4C from South, TC and KC.

 

Director rules on the revoke and transfers one trick to E/W

 

Declarer, South, argues that there is no way a trick could have been lost - that on the lead of 5C, 9C by North, 4C by South

5S by South, 7C from West, KC North.

4H from North, QC from South, TC from West.

 

I said the Law is the Law but Declarer has challenged me to put this scenario on the website to get the opinion of Directors in US in particular (over to you Ed)where Declarer asserts he would never have a trick taken off him in this situation.

[Vampyr]

Declarer asserts he would never have a trick taken off him in this situation.

 

Perhaps it would be best to explain to declarer that he didn't "lose" a trick; he had a winning trick transferred to satisfy the revoke penalty.

[billw55]

Declarer, South, argues that there is no way a trick could have been lost

Perhaps he should have claimed.

[iviehoff]

Director rules on the revoke and transfers one trick to E/W

Declarer, South, argues that there is no way a trick could have been lost

I said the Law is the Law but Declarer has challenged me...

As reported by Zia Mahmood in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, a player had a possibly unique opportunity to bid and make a grand slam while off the Ace of trumps, because a defender revoked before his side took their Ace (memo to self, commit revokes only after taking your winners). Unfortunately declarer misplayed it, and emerged with only 11 natural tricks rather than 12, so, with the revoke penalty trick, he was still 1 off.

 

L 64 is clear. The ruling on a revoke is on the basis of equity (1) if it is a revoke the law says is not subject to automatic penalty at Law 64B or (2) if the non-offending side is not adequately compensated by the penalty tricks (L64C). In such a case, what might have happened absent the revoke is relevant.

 

But for revokes subject to automatic penalty (L64A), these automatic penalties apply regardless of what might otherwise have happened absent the revoke. Thus, you can make a grand slam off the Ace of trumps, if the defenders revoke.

 

It does not matter whether this is under ACBL or any other administration, there is no difference on this between administrations. The law here is quite clear.

[wyman]

Isn't the right ruling 2 tricks to EW?

 

A. Penalty Assessed When a revoke is established:

 

1. Offending Player Won Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player, (penalty) after play ceases, the trick on which the revoke occurred, plus one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side, are transferred to the non-offending side.

(my emphasis)

[RMB1]

Isn't the right ruling 2 tricks to EW?

 

A. Penalty Assessed

When a revoke is established:

1. Offending Player Won Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player

[/b]

 

This does not apply if dummy wins the trick and declarer revokes from his hand.

[gordontd]

The revoke trick wasn't won by the offending player.

[wyman]

This does not apply if dummy wins the trick and declarer revokes from his hand.

 

I was afraid someone might suggest that. We should look, then, at 64A2 (though I feel as though, for the purposes of these laws, declarer should be both the offending player and the one to win the trick):

 

2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

 

Clear, I think, no matter how you slice it. 2 tricks to EW.

[RMB1]

I was afraid someone might suggest that. We should look, then, at 64A2 ...

There is a footnote to Law 64A2: "A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law".

[iviehoff]

I was afraid someone might suggest that. We should look, then, at 64A2

Unfortunately you quote from an outdated set of laws. Under the 2007 laws, L64 A now says

 

When a revoke is established:

1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending

player¹⁹, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred

is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any

subsequent tricks won by the offending side.

2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the

offending player¹⁹ then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent

trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

 

¹⁹ A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law.

[wyman]

Amazing, as I've quoted from the laws posted on the ACBL website. [cf. http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm]

 

I see that you are correct, looking at the article from the BB about revisions to the laws, but it's annoying that the ACBL is still hosting outdated information.

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

[bluejak]

I said the Law is the Law but Declarer has challenged me to put this scenario on the website to get the opinion of Directors in US in particular (over to you Ed)where Declarer asserts he would never have a trick taken off him in this situation.

I am curious: did you show the player the Law in the Law book? I would have.

 

As reported by Zia Mahmood in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, a player had a possibly unique opportunity to bid and make a grand slam while off the Ace of trumps, because a defender revoked before his side took their Ace (memo to self, commit revokes only after taking your winners). Unfortunately declarer misplayed it, and emerged with only 11 natural tricks rather than 12, so, with the revoke penalty trick, he was still 1 off.

Pfui! That's nothing. :(

 

About forty years ago a player in London was in a rather poor grand slam: he could see nine tricks! :huh:

 

Anyway he played the hand out without worrying overmuch. At one point his RHO ruffed and he overruffed.

 

Now, RHO had revoked: so if he does not overruff the following occurs:

 

1. He pitches one of his four losers
   
2. He gets two tricks for the revoke since RHO wins the trick with the revoke card
   
3. RHO is endplayed to give him a trick
   

He thus missed the chance to be the first player to make a grand slam on an endplay. If I had been him I would have shot myself or taken up a different mindsport. :)

[iviehoff]

He thus missed the chance to be the first player to make a grand slam on an endplay.

That was actually the hand Zia reported, but such is my memory these days...

[BunnyGo]

He thus missed the chance to be the first player to make a grand slam on an endplay. If I had been him I would have shot myself or taken up a different mindsport. :)

 

Wow, that's great. It's even better than the (apocryphal? fictional? I dunno) hand where a pair made 7♠ off the ace of trump. They made on a cross ruff and when the person holding the ace also had 14 cards and the perfect distribution so that they could never ruff in, the slam was made.

[mycroft]

Player has claim rules and revoke rules mixed up (as everyone's saying). Suggest to him that he's lucky he pulled this one off in the last three years, because before Sept 2008, it would have been 2 tricks (as Wyman is showing)!

 

I have explained to some people in the past that while we are moving more toward equity in assigning rectifications, there are still some cases where there is an explicit "we'd rather you don't do this, so we're going to penalise you, maybe you'll pay attention next time" component, and revokes is one of them (and it is only when equity *to the NOS* isn't served that we do anything else).

[barmar]

Amazing, as I've quoted from the laws posted on the ACBL website. [cf. http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm]

That's apparently an old link you have in your bookmarks. If you start from the ACBL home page, and click on "Charts, Rules, and Regulation", then "Laws of Duplicate Bridge", the URL is

 

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf

 

and it's the current version.

[wyman]

That's apparently an old link you have in your bookmarks. If you start from the ACBL home page, and click on "Charts, Rules, and Regulation", then "Laws of Duplicate Bridge", the URL is

 

http://www.acbl.org/...cate-Bridge.pdf

 

and it's the current version.

 

Yes, but if you google "laws of contract bridge," the 3rd result (and first non-pdf) is on the ACBL's website as linked above. I'm just saying probably they should update that page with a warning, update it with the correct laws, or take it down. [imho]

[barmar]

Why don't you send them an email. They probably just forgot about the old page.

 

I do wish someone would convert the new Laws to HTML format, like the old ones. Having to scroll through a huge PDF file is a royal pain.

[pran]

Wow, that's great. It's even better than the (apocryphal? fictional? I dunno) hand where a pair made 7♠ off the ace of trump. They made on a cross ruff and when the person holding the ace also had 14 cards and the perfect distribution so that they could never ruff in, the slam was made.

Robert Darvas: Right through the pack. The tale by the Ace of Hearts

[blackshoe]

One of the cool things about the Portable Document Format (PDF) is that you can actually have links inside your document, if you do it right. The ACBL version ought, IMO to have links from the table of contents to the body of the law, and also from the index, and even where one law references another. But whoever built the damn thing got lazy, or didn't know he could do that. :(

 

To summarize, Chris, Declarer revoked (Law 61A) on trick 11, when he discarded the ♠5. The revoke became established when declarer led dummy's ♥4 (Law 63A1). Declarer Dummy won the revoke trick, Declarer the next trick, and dummy the last trick. Therefore, 2 1 tricks are is transferred to the NOS (Law 64A1 2). Since if there had been no revoke, the defense would have won only one of these three tricks, Law 64C does not apply.

 

David is right that reading the laws to the table might have scotched the debate, although in this part of North America, even attempting to do so is likely to result in vociferous complaints from the players, along the lines of "we don't have time for that!" :(

Edited November 2, 2011 by blackshoe
fixed my error as to who won the revoke trick

[wyman]

See above: Dummy (not declarer) won the revoke trick.

[blackshoe]

Grr. Okay, I'll fix it.

[mycroft]

David is right that reading the laws to the table might have scotched the debate, although in this part of North America, even attempting to do so is likely to result in vociferous complaints from the players, along the lines of "we don't have time for that!" :(

But (to riff off the traditional business gripe) we sure have time to argue that we know what it says.

 

Having said that, there's a reason that this TD's lawbook is (unless I haven't done my ritual today, which does, unfortunately, happen) always at the table when I get there. And when I haven't done my ritual, it's at the scoring table (which is bad, but not hopeless).

[Chris3875]

Thanks Ed, David and all. I wasn't the Director on the day but was approached by the South player yesterday who told me that he got a bad Director decision while he was playing at an event in Melbourne a few days earlier. When he described the scenario I told him that, in my opinion, the Director got it right but he was adamant that no matter what the law book says, it was entirely unfair to make him give a trick back that he was never going to lose, no matter whether he revoked or followed with a trump.

[blackshoe]

A friend of mine used to say "you're entitled to your wrong opinion". :)

 

The law is clear, so your South's opinion of what's fair is not really relevant. You might also show him

Law 81B2: The director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

If he still has a beef, tell him to take it up with the WBFLC. B-)