VixTD Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 ♠- ♥QJ98 ♦J ♣- .............♠9 ♥- ♦1087 ♣5 ♠76 ♥- ♦AQ9 ♣- South is declaring a spade contract. The West hand is irrelevant. South leads a diamond to dummy's jack, and East ruffs with the ♠9. South then faces her hand and claims the rest. The director is called when it comes to light that East has revoked. How many of the last five tricks does South get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 If East or West agrees to the claim, the revoke is established. East won the revoke trick and that trick is transferred. The claim is good and declarer makes the rest, so he makes all the last five tricks. If East/West do not agree to the claim before the revoke comes to light, the revoke is not established and must be corrected. EBU White Book 70.3 tells us to assess the claim with any doubt going against the revoking side. The defenders will only make ♠9, giving four of the last five tricks to declarer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 How many of the last five tricks does South get?Four. East could not fail to take one trick by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Did East or West agree to the claim orally or by facing his hand or in any other way? If so, then the revoke trick is transferred to South, so South makes the final five tricks. If not, then the revoke is not established and East must play a diamond. East will now make his master trump and South will make four of the final five tricks. From the wording of the post it sounds as if the defenders did agree to the claim, but this seems to me to be the critical point for the TD to establish at the table. Paul(not a qualified TD) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Did EW accept South's claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 ♠- ♥QJ98 ♦J ♣- .............♠9 ♥- ♦1087 ♣5 ♠76 ♥- ♦AQ9 ♣- South is declaring a spade contract. The West hand is irrelevant. South leads a diamond to dummy's jack, and East ruffs with the ♠9. South then faces her hand and claims the rest. The director is called when it comes to light that East has revoked. How many of the last five tricks does South get?Insufficient data. Did either defender agree to the claim "orally or by facing his hand or in any other way"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Interesting, EW agreement seems to be the key point. I based my (apparently knee-jerk) answer on a vague understanding that the laws had moved to toward restoring equity rather than penalizing. I suppose it is a good thing that I am not a director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 what's this about defenders facing their hands (yes i know that's from the laws)? play has ceased. they can flash their cards however they like without it meaning anything in normal cirucumstances. indeed if an opponent claims it's helpful to see partner's cards to check there's nothing you can do. i suspect that's actually supposed to be referring to 'making a claim' not 'agrees to a claim' (64A3). typo: 63A3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Read Law 63A3 carefully. BTW, there is no law 64A3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 I have. The point I was trying to make is that with several occurrences of 'or' in the sentence it's not evident that 'by facing his hand' pertains to both 'makes a claim' and 'agrees to a claim'. Nowhere else in the laws (law 69A in particular) is there any suggestion that a defender exposing his hand in response to a claim signifies acceptance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_corgi Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 I have. The point I was trying to make is that with several occurrences of 'or' in the sentence it's not evident that 'by facing his hand' pertains to both 'makes a claim' and 'agrees to a claim'. Nowhere else in the laws (law 69A in particular) is there any suggestion that a defender exposing his hand in response to a claim signifies acceptance. Also, even if L63A3 is meant to imply that a defender can agree to a claim by facing his hand, I am not sure that it implies that facing his hand constitutes agreement. Another possible way to agree to the claim is orally, but that does not imply that any oral communication would constitute acceptance of the claim. Surely intent to accept the claim is required, in a similar way to a faced card being a lead if intended as such but not otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 The language of Law 63A3 is clear: if either defender agrees orally to a claim, or agrees by facing his hand, or agrees in any other way, then the revoke is established. If none of those happens, presumably because both defenders object to the claim, then the revoke is not established. If the revoke is not established, then it must be corrected, even if play has ceased (Law 62A). The director must then adjudicate the claim, given that the revoker would have had a major penalty card during the play of the remaining tricks. That is what makes this ruling interesting, btw. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 ... That is what makes this ruling interesting, btw. B-) Why interesting? (I really feel I am missing something.) ♦J wins. A ♥ is played from dummy and East must play ♠9, winning the trick. South's remaining three cards are good, whatever he plays on the ♥. Four tricks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_corgi Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 The language of Law 63A3 is clear: if either defender agrees orally to a claim, or agrees by facing his hand, or... We probably cross-posted, but to clarify: couldn't a defender face his hand for other reasons, such as to contest the claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 We probably cross-posted, but to clarify: couldn't a defender face his hand for other reasons, such as to contest the claim?If he says he's contesting the claim, yes. If he just faces his hand without saying anything, he's agreeing to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Why interesting? (I really feel I am missing something.) ♦J wins. A ♥ is played from dummy and East must play ♠9, winning the trick. South's remaining three cards are good, whatever he plays on the ♥. Four tricks?If the revoke was established, declarer wins the last four tricks, and then one trick is transferred to him because of the established revoke. If the revoke was not established, the ♠9 becomes a major penalty card, declarer wins trick 9 in dummy and leads a heart. East ruffs, and declarer must discard a winner from his hand. EW get one of the last five tricks, declarer gets four. So what's interesting is that if either defender contests the claim, the revoke penalty disappears, Law 64C does not apply, and the defenders get one more trick than they would have if the revoke was established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 If he says he's contesting the claim, yes. If he just faces his hand without saying anything, he's agreeing to it.How did you reach that conclusion? It's certainly not supported by the Laws covering claims and concessions. The most common reason for a defender to face his hand after a claim is to help his partner to decide whether to accept the claim or not. I can't recall anyone ever accepting a claim by showing their hand - usually one does it by folding one's cards up and putting them back in the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 So what's interesting is that if either defender contests the claim, the revoke penalty disappearsI don't think that's quite right. If one defender agrees to the claim but the other contests it, the revoke is established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 ... So what's interesting is that if either defender contests the claim, the revoke penalty disappears, Law 64C does not apply, and the defenders get one more trick than they would have if the revoke was established. OK. I thought you meant the fact that ♠9 would be a major penalty card was important/interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Interesting, EW agreement seems to be the key point. I based my (apparently knee-jerk) answer on a vague understanding that the laws had moved to toward restoring equity rather than penalizing. I suppose it is a good thing that I am not a director.It is an interesting comment you made here, more often seen on rec.games.bridge than here. It is certainly true. But while the lawmakers have said so, that does not mean that anyone should rule on that basis: they rule on what the Law says. It was a comment on how the Laws had changed: the approach of following the Laws remains unchanged. The most commonly applied and basic penalty still in the Law book is the transfer of tricks after a revoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 I think that law 63A3 is very badly written. Like others, I have *never* seen a defender showing their hand with the intent to accept the claim, only as supporting evidence to partner ("I have no objections; pard?", which is of neutral affect); whereas I have several times seen players (defenders included) showing their hand with intent to make a claim. I can't imagine it's the intent of the lawmakers to make both facings, with no other context, have the same affect. Oddly enough, I'd never seen that before. This looks to me like another one for Grattan's list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I think they were just trying to save some verbiage by combining making and agreeing to a claim in one place, and mentioning the common ways players typically do this. "orally" applies to both, but "by facing his hand" generally only applies to making. Since they included "or in any other way", the list of methods seems to be superfluous, since they're obviously not meant to be exhaustive (well, including "any other way" tautologically makes it exhaustive). I also don't think it's intended to be definitive, just illustrative. It's still up to the TD to determine whether a claim or agreement has actually occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I can't imagine it's the intent of the lawmakers to make both facings, with no other context, have the same affect. /grammar police on Effect, not affect /grammar police off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 It's still up to the TD to determine whether a claim or agreement has actually occurred.I agree with this bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 Interesting, EW agreement seems to be the key point. I based my (apparently knee-jerk) answer on a vague understanding that the laws had moved to toward restoring equity rather than penalizing. I suppose it is a good thing that I am not a director. Yes, as directors are expected to read the law book, rather than having a vague understanding of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.