Revoke?

[bluejak]

What I think everyone would like is to be able to just restore some kind of equity - this logic is at least close to being a legal justification and if it happens at the congrees I'm directing tomorrow, one I just might invoke and then let various committees sort it out later if anyone is unhappy.

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. I do not want to restore some kind of equity which is neither my job, yours, nor any other TD. Our job is to apply the Laws, and only restore equity when the Laws tell us to, not when some people think it would be a good idea.

 

If you rule contrary to the Laws and let "a Committee" sort it out you are not doing your job. I appreciate it is not easy to work out what the correct ruling is, but that is why I have posted this. But faffing around with what a set of people want, equity for no apparent reason, is not the answer.

 

I do dislike this current fad for trying everything we can to let people commit infractions and not suffer. In this case we have one side who are the offenders, and one side who are the non-offenders, so to my mind there are only two reasonable views: one is to work out what the Laws tell us to do, and two is to make sure the non-offenders do not suffer.

[blackshoe]

I already answered that question, Sven. What happens to those cards? Nothing. They remain where they are.

 

I don't "claim" the card played from dummy is the heart called by declarer. Law 45B "claims" it.

[AlexJonson]

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. I do not want to restore some kind of equity which is neither my job, yours, nor any other TD. Our job is to apply the Laws, and only restore equity when the Laws tell us to, not when some people think it would be a good idea.

 

If you rule contrary to the Laws and let "a Committee" sort it out you are not doing your job. I appreciate it is not easy to work out what the correct ruling is, but that is why I have posted this. But faffing around with what a set of people want, equity for no apparent reason, is not the answer.

 

I do dislike this current fad for trying everything we can to let people commit infractions and not suffer. In this case we have one side who are the offenders, and one side who are the non-offenders, so to my mind there are only two reasonable views: one is to work out what the Laws tell us to do, and two is to make sure the non-offenders do not suffer.

 

Slightly unsure about the end of this piece. Are we deciding who the 'offenders' are and then searching for a way to make them suffer. Sounds like an old approach to directing that I thought was now deprecated.

[blackshoe]

I submit that anyone at the table "suffers" in this case, particularly if he has to listen to or read all the posts in this thread. :P

 

The original offender was dummy, who placed in the played position a card that was not played. A second offense was committed by fourth hand, who failed to follow suit. Yes, he was probably misled by what dummy did, but if there's a law that lets him off the hook, I don't know which one.

 

BTW, can dummy "fail to follow suit" when he's on lead?

[gnasher]

Can't we just rule 60:40, on the grounds that the possible interpretations of the Laws are both numerous and non-obvious?

[mjj29]

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. I do not want to restore some kind of equity which is neither my job, yours, nor any other TD. Our job is to apply the Laws, and only restore equity when the Laws tell us to, not when some people think it would be a good idea.

But I thought:

 

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-

offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending

side through its infraction.

ergo - restore equity.

 

If you rule contrary to the Laws and let "a Committee" sort it out you are not doing your job.

Well, my tongue was at least slightly in my cheek for that comment. The chief problem here seems to be that the clear offenders are the declaring side and the NOS (as I said, when caught in time L45D clearly treats defence here as the NOS, I don't see why we shouldn't also if it's caught later) are the defence - but the closest interpretation of the law seems to require assessing revoke penalties against defence, which definitely seems unjust. Thus, I'm trying to find an alternative reading of the law which allows us to. I've not seen any suggestions for handling this which aren't contrary to some law. Vis your last paragraph:

 

I do dislike this current fad for trying everything we can to let people commit infractions and not suffer. In this case we have one side who are the offenders, and one side who are the non-offenders, so to my mind there are only two reasonable views: one is to work out what the Laws tell us to do, and two is to make sure the non-offenders do not suffer.

I'm pretty sure you're agreeing that the side who are the offenders are the declaring side and the other side are the non-offenders, and yet the Laws tell us to penalise them for revokes. I am trying to find a legal justification for your second point: make sure the non-offenders do not suffer. The two most logical approaches to do this I can see are:

• Declare that dummy has revoked and invoke L64B7 and L64C
  
• Decide the defence have revoked and while we can't adjust the score because the penalty for that is unduly harsh (L12B2) we can say that dummy's misplacing of the card is an irregularity for which the laws don't provide indemnity and adjust under 12A1.
  

I believe in both cases the resulting score will be the same.

[pran]

I already answered that question, Sven. What happens to those cards? Nothing. They remain where they are.

 

I don't "claim" the card played from dummy is the heart called by declarer. Law 45B "claims" it.

So the result on this board as ruled by you is according to the heart in dummy being played twice (first when called but not "played" by Dummy and second when eventually disposed of from dummy's hand) and the club never?

 

Sorry for using the word "ridiculous", but if this isn't ridiculous I don't know what is.

 

At least my understanding of ruling according to Law 45D leaves us with a manageable result on the board:

Once each side has played to the next trick the irregular trick stands as virtually played, i.e. it consists of clubs from Dummy and RHO, a heart from Declarer (Revoke) and a trump from LHO.

 

Is this reasonable? IMHO yes.

(And judging from the last submission by bluejak I believe he is of the same opinion: The declaring side is OS, the defending side is NOS. I only disagree with him where he seems to consider this being a difficult case :rolleyes: )

[pgrice]

 

At least my understanding of ruling according to Law 45D leaves us with a manageable result on the board:

Once each side has played to the next trick the irregular trick stands as virtually played, i.e. it consists of clubs from Dummy and RHO, a heart from Declarer (Revoke) and a trump from LHO

 

 

I don't find this reasonable ... a heart was played from dummy [L45B] ... RHO revoked (though we may have some sympathy since Dummy moved a club to the played position) ... Declarer followed suit and LHO revoked (although as with RHO we may have some sympathy). After LHO leads and Declarer plays to the next trick L45D doesn't tell us what to do but it would seem that the trick just played must remain as played. To now decide that a club was played from dummy and thus Declarer and not RHO nor LHO revoked surely must be wrong. Had, for example RHO played a heart, would he also now be deemed to have revoked?! I agree the situation with dummy's cards is unusual but I suppose we have to put up with this to avoid players having followed suit to the card played from dummy (by Declarer naming it) being deemed to have revoked if attention is not drawn to a card misplayed by dummy in time to correct it.

 

So, the revoke(s) is(are) established L63A1 and one trick (presently) is transfered to Declarer L64A1. Further tricks may be transfered L64C. A PP for Dummy may well be in order.

 

Peter

[bluejak]

But I thought:

 

{quote eliminated by software}

 

ergo - restore equity.

The trouble with that argument, which has been used for such things as saying you may not use Law 90 onwards is simple: it is merely a statement of intent by the lawmakers, and you do not rule based on it: you rule based on the laws the lawmakers have provided.

[schulken]

What an interesting situation. I'll add a twist that I recently had to resolve (which was the subject of a previous thread). What if LHO had been hearing-impaired? Would you rule differently?

 

It strikes me that when both sides played to the next trick, dummy has revoked and the revoke has been established. Both defenders also revoked by failing to play a heart. That takes us over to L64B3 and L64B7. Although dummy revoked, there is no rectification. Since both sides revoked on the same board - heck, on the same trick - there is no rectification. Just keep playing.

 

All this assumes you've ruled that indeed a heart was called for by declarer.

[mjj29]

The trouble with that argument, which has been used for such things as saying you may not use Law 90 onwards is simple: it is merely a statement of intent by the lawmakers, and you do not rule based on it: you rule based on the laws the lawmakers have provided.

Sure, but if the objectives of adjustment are X, then we should find a way to rule under the law which allows us to do X, where possible. In this case, it's not clear whether _any_ of the possible solutions completely follow the laws as written, hence I'm trying to find a reading of the laws where we can rule with the intent of them - which seems perfectly reasonable. (Invoking 12A1 seems the best attempt at this and at least at first glance doesn't seem obviously incorrect).

[kevperk]

To those who claim that once it is too late to go back to the last trick, the lead to the trick is a club, not a heart - what if everyone played a heart? Would the club stand as the lead, with every other hand revoking?

[mjj29]

To those who claim that once it is too late to go back to the last trick, the lead to the trick is a club, not a heart - what if everyone played a heart? Would the club stand as the lead, with every other hand revoking?

If that is the case, at least you don't have to apply any revoke penalties, just restore equity (both sides having revoked on the same board)

[lamford]

It seems clear from the whole basis of the Laws (that you should never gain from an infraction) that equity has to be restored, and the TD judges what would have happened had the correct card been played from dummy, giving the benefit of any doubt to the non-offender.

 

I do not like using 12A1, because the Laws do provide indemnity, under 45D. However, we can apply the "catchall" Law 23, and decide that dummy could have been aware that by "pretending to mishear declarer" he might gain an advantage. So the TD just restores equity for dummy's infraction of 45B, in that dummy did not pick up the named card, and could have been aware it would work to his advantage.

[blackshoe]

Lol. "First the sentence, then the trial! Off with his head!"

[mjj29]

I do not like using 12A1, because the Laws do provide indemnity, under 45D.

Surely 45D _doesn't_ provide indemnity, since 45D only applies until both sides have played to the next trick, which they have?

[pran]

Surely 45D _doesn't_ provide indemnity, since 45D only applies until both sides have played to the next trick, which they have?

What is the "indemnity" problem when both declarer and defender(s) have "accepted" the illegal play by dummy?

 

May I remind that this is the real essence of Law 45D: The illegal play must be corrected if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the following trick. Thereafter the "illegal" play by dummy has been accepted by both sides and must stand as played.

 

(And yes: If declarer is so absent-minded that he follows with a heart to the illegal club lead from dummy and doesn't react even before playing to the next trick then I see little reason to not ruling a revoke.)

[Cascade]

What is the "indemnity" problem when both declarer and defender(s) have "accepted" the illegal play by dummy?

 

May I remind that this is the real essence of Law 45D: The illegal play must be corrected if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the following trick. Thereafter the "illegal" play by dummy has been accepted by both sides and must stand as played.

 

(And yes: If declarer is so absent-minded that he follows with a heart to the illegal club lead from dummy and doesn't react even before playing to the next trick then I see little reason to not ruling a revoke.)

 

Sven you add additional interpretation that does not appear in the words of the law. There is no suggestion in the law that someone is accepting the card that has been improperly placed in the played position.

[pran]

Sven you add additional interpretation that does not appear in the words of the law. There is no suggestion in the law that someone is accepting the card that has been improperly placed in the played position.

If a player doesn't accept it he had better object before it is too late to make a rectification without destroying any possibility of obtaining a result on the board.

[iviehoff]

This whole discussion is very similar in nature to some other cases we looked at previously. They all come down to the inconsistency/incompleteness of the laws relating to defective tricks and played cards. There are all sorts of scenarios but the basic starting point of many of them is either:

(1) Dummy (or indeed another player) fails to quit a card played before both sides have played to the next trick. (Indeed, it may be too late for declarer to rectify dummy's failure to quit the card properly as soon as someone leads - 65B3.)

(2) A player picks up a played card (his own, or someone else's) and puts it in his hand.

Just the above can be sufficient for there to be a defective trick, even though we all know what was played to it. Extra fun is added when, as in the current case, another card was quitted instead by dummy, or a player plays a card that was previously played.

 

It is apparent that the law is defective in the area of management of played cards. Among other things, it does not tell us what to do with a card that has been played to a previous trick, if we find it somewhere it should not be. It does not tell us if that card may be played, apparently for a second time. It does not tell us, when a card does end up being played twice, which of the occurrences of its being played count. And no doubt some other rather important things.

 

The law needs fixing here. There is more than one plausible answer to the unanswered questions I mention. Different people imagine different answers to those unanswered questions. It doesn't matter what ruling one suggests in these cases, they are all demonstrably wrong. The best one can do is attempt something reasonable.