"Don't be silly chaps!"

[mamos]

A simple one to give you something to think about in the pre-Christmas period.

 

South is declarer in a Heart contract.

 

♦Jack is lead from dummy.

 

East follows (good)

 

South ruffs (bad - revoke)

 

West overruffs with ♥Ace (even badder - revoke)

 

West leads ♥5 to next trick. (baddest of all)

 

East says (correctly) "Don't be silly chaps! You've both got some Diamonds."

 

We need a TD.

[pran]

A simple one to give you something to think about in the pre-Christmas period.

 

South is declarer in a Heart contract.

 

♦Jack is lead from dummy.

 

East follows (good)

 

South ruffs (bad - revoke)

 

West overruffs with ♥Ace (even badder - revoke)

 

West leads ♥5 to next trick. (baddest of all)

 

East says (correctly) "Don't be silly chaps! You've both got some Diamonds."

 

We need a TD.

Both South and West have revoked. According to minute(s) from WBFLC the play shall be rectified so that no irregularity remains, and play just continues.

 

If my memory serves me right there shall be no further rectification (no penalty cards), but the fact that West holds the ♥Ace and ♥5 is UI to East.

[aguahombre]

Both South and West have revoked. According to minute(s) from WBFLC the play shall be rectified so that no irregularity remains, and play just continues.

 

If my memory serves me right there shall be no further rectification (no penalty cards), but the fact that West holds the ♥Ace and ♥5 is UI to East.

Is that correct? Only West's revoke has been established at that point. Just asking.

[pran]

Is that correct? Only West's revoke has been established at that point. Just asking.

See Law 62:

South must correct his unestablished revoke and West may (i.e. must) correct the card he has played to the trick subsequent to the revoke but before attention was called to it.

[gordontd]

See Law 62:

South must correct his unestablished revoke and West may (i.e. must) correct the card he has played to the trick subsequent to the revoke but before attention was called to it.

See Law 63B:

Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as

provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on

which the revoke occurred stands as played

Hence the problem :)

[blackshoe]

Where is Yossarian when we need him? :D

[pran]

See Law 63B:

Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

Hence the problem :)

Quite.

But the laws do not take into consideration the possibility that there can be more than one revoke, and therefore we have had the minute from WBFLC clarifying a general principle on how to handle such situations.

 

Now carefully consider

Each member of the non-offending side may withdraw and return to his hand any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16D).

There is no condition in this law that the play of such cards must have been legal, this law applies with equal force also when any of the subsequent plays constitutes a separate revoke.

 

The normal way of handling multiple irregularities is to handle them in sequence, so here we start with the first revoke (by South, not yet established).

 

If we want to create an unsolvable problem we let Law 63B take precedence before Law 62C1. If we want to follow the instruction from WBFLC and establish equity we apply Law 62C1 on the cards played by West subsequent to the revoke by South.

[ddrankin]

Quite.

But the laws do not take into consideration the possibility that there can be more than one revoke, and therefore we have had the minute from WBFLC clarifying a general principle on how to handle such situations.

 

 

What about 64(B)7?

[pran]

What about 64(B)7?

Indeed.

 

I overlooked that the minute had already been incorporated into the laws.

(Thanks)

[gordontd]

But the laws do not take into consideration the possibility that there can be more than one revoke, and therefore we have had the minute from WBFLC clarifying a general principle on how to handle such situations.

Since you've mentioned this minute a couple of times, let's look to see what it says. I can find two minutes, but perhaps you know of more.

If there are two revokes on the same board by the same side the equity in the case of

the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.

[WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]

When both sides have revoked on the same board each revoke is examined separately

in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD acts as as though

there had been no revoke by either side.

[WBFLC minutes 2009-09-08#7]

Both of these seem to me to be concerned with how we assess equity, not with how we correct unestablished revokes.

[gordontd]

Indeed.

 

I overlooked that the minute had already been incorporated into the laws.

(Thanks)

This is not the minute being incorporated into the laws: this is yet another question that is not exactly on point to the original problem.

 

I don't believe we will find a single perfect answer, because nowhere is it stated whether 62C or 63B has precedence, and so I would not consider either view to be wrong. I would however incline towards not allowing an established revoke to be corrected. In holding that opinion and favouring that approach I understand, from having asked him, that I share common ground with the WBF Head TD.

[pran]

Both of these seem to me to be concerned with how we assess equity, not with how we correct unestablished revokes.

 

If there are two revokes on the same board by the same side the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke. [WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]

 

This minute addressed the situation when there has been multiple revokes on the same board by the same side. Not applicable in our situation.

 

When both sides have revoked on the same board each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD acts as as though there had been no revoke by either side. [WBFLC minutes 2009-09-08#7]

 

This is the minute that is applicable in our situation, note the last sentence (enhanced by me).

[gordontd]

When both sides have revoked on the same board each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD acts as as though there had been no revoke by either side. [WBFLC minutes 2009-09-08#7]

 

This is the minute that is applicable in our situation, note the last sentence (enhanced by me).

Sure, it tells us how to adjust under 64C. It doesn't tell us how to deal with the situation at the table.

 

And of course in practice we're going to end up in the same place whichever view we take.

[jhenrikj]

I asked one of the top directors of WBF about a very similar situation.

 

East plays a diamond, south (dummy) follows suit, west ruffs (revoke), north overruffs (revoke), north claims.

 

East does not accept the claim since he spotted north's revoke, and at the same time west discovers that he also revoked. Now we have the same situation, North has established his own revoke, west's revoke is not yet established.

 

The answer I got was that west of course may/must correct his revoke, then north also may change his card (62C1 overrules 63B) but the fact that there has been an established revoke does not change, so in the end we apply 64A on north's established revoke. The winner of the trick is whoever won the trick after west and north has corrected their played cards.

 

 

There has been a clarification on every EBL TD course that 64B7 ONLY applies when there has been established revokes by both sides. If there is one established revoke and the other side make a revoke that is corrected, 64B7 does not apply. I know that you in the ACBL probably do not agree with that (and probably those of you not attending the EBL TD courses as well), but that is how the law is interpreted in the EBL and by the European members of WBFLC that I've spoken with. Of course it's a well known fact that the members of WBFLC often disagree, but I've learnt that it's best to follow the interpretation of those who corrects my TD exams ;;)

 

There is a case added where no rectification is made: when both sides revoke on the same board. As

made clear in the heading of Law 64B, this is only true if both revokes have become established.

[dcrc2]

There has been a clarification on every EBL TD course that 64B7 ONLY applies when there has been established revokes by both sides.

That's not a "clarification" - the law clearly says there is no penalty if both sides have revoked, whether or not they were established. If the EBL wants it to apply only to established revokes, they are changing the law.

[jhenrikj]

That's not a "clarification" - the law clearly says there is no penalty if both sides have revoked, whether or not they were established. If the EBL wants it to apply only to established revokes, they are changing the law.

 

No, 64B only applies to established revokes. You can not apply any part of 64B on an unestablished revoke, and that is what you are trying to do....the second revoke is not established and then you can not apply 64B7 on that revoke....

[aguahombre]

Having trouble following this. Isn't the 1st revoke the unestablished one?

[campboy]

If one law says that the ace of hearts may be withdrawn, and another law says that the revoke committed by playing the ace of hearts may not be corrected, it follows that the act of withdrawing the revoke card does not correct the revoke in this instance. In effect West may change his card but this does not change the fact that his revoke has been established (though since both sides have revoked that hardly matters).

[blackshoe]

What about ownership of the trick?

[Zelandakh]

My literal reading of 64B is that it applies to an established revoke but, given that we are working out how to deal with one, 64B7 applies whether or not the second revoke is established. That may or may not be what the Lawmakers intended.

[pran]

My literal reading of 64B is that it applies to an established revoke but, given that we are working out how to deal with one, 64B7 applies whether or not the second revoke is established. That may or may not be what the Lawmakers intended.

I don't think the lawmakers ever conceived the possibility of a revoke from each side on the same board in such a way that the first revoke was not established while the second was.

[bluejak]

So we have an unestablished revoke followed by an established revoke. Dealing with matters in order, a principle mentioned above which is often followed in cases of doubt but is not a matter of Law or WBFLC interpretation, the first revoke must be corrected per Law 62A. After it is corrected, the next two cards may be corrected per Law 62C1. The ownership of that trick is decided by normal rules, since the revoke Laws do not suggest otherwise.

 

This means that the established revoke has been corrected in defiance of Law 63B. While it is unfortunate to assume the lawmakers have made a mistake, I suggest they have done so, since I believe it should read:

 

Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick or as provided in Law 62C1 after a previous revoke), and the trick on

which the revoke occurred stands as played.

As to penalty tricks [no, I do not use the term "rectification" when it is unsuitable] I am afraid that Law 64B7 is clear and unambiguous, so there are no penalty tricks.

 

As to Law 64C that stands on its merits. It is not affected by Law 64B7 which refers only to penalty tricks not equity, so must be applied for each side, allowing for the WBFLC minute that equity is considered for the second revoking side after the first revoke.

 

Messy. But I don't think there is a particular justification for dealing with the second revoke first: that is just as messy if not more so. I think we just have to live with the fact that multiple infractions lead to complications. While the WBFLC gets blamed for not dealing with multiple infractions, I am not convinced it is at all easy to do so, because of the myriad of possible situations.

[axman]

So we have an unestablished revoke followed by an established revoke. Dealing with matters in order, a principle mentioned above which is often followed in cases of doubt but is not a matter of Law or WBFLC interpretation, the first revoke must be corrected per Law 62A. After it is corrected, the next two cards may be corrected per Law 62C1. The ownership of that trick is decided by normal rules, since the revoke Laws do not suggest otherwise.

 

 

I think we just have to live with the fact that multiple infractions lead to complications. While the WBFLC gets blamed for not dealing with multiple infractions, I am not convinced it is at all easy to do so, because of the myriad of possible situations.

 

This assertion is particularly incredible as it is indeed easy to have law that makes dealing with multiple infractions rather straight forward. The constructing of law is not particularly difficult provided the myriad of existing law provisions that make it impossible to do so are first remedied.

[blackshoe]

Your mission, Mr. Axman, should you decide to accept it, is to develop such a set of laws. Should you fail, the Secretary will deny all knowledge of this tasking.

 

This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

[bluejak]

This assertion is particularly incredible as it is indeed easy to have law that makes dealing with multiple infractions rather straight forward. The constructing of law is not particularly difficult provided the myriad of existing law provisions that make it impossible to do so are first remedied.

Of course it is not easy. You have a number of possible infractions in the game, I have no idea how many, say 200 for luck. So if you have two infractions that's 40,000 different possibilities, yes? Jolly easy to deal with all - and I hate to think of triple infractions.

 

No doubt oyu will come up with some meaningless over-simplification like deal with the first one first. In no way does that solve the problem - see this thread - but anyway what happens if they are simultaneous?

 

Of course it is not easy.