Concealed revoke

[lexlogan]

A few weeks ago I was victimized by a concealed revoke: North showed out on the second club, I played her for length in spades, she in fact had a singleton spade and I was down an extra overtrick. After I got home I realized that South could not have 4128 shape and, checking the hand records, North revoked and then turned her cards face down when I claimed the last few tricks. I'm quite confident North was not aware of the revoke, and of course if I'd been more alert I'd've realized something was out of whack. But it's much easier to spot a revoke when you see the cards!

 

Anyway, the Laws disallow intentionally concealing a revoke but do not require everyone to face their cards when a claim is made. I routinley do so, and note that several players do likewise, but most turn their cards face down. Would anyone favor requiring all cards to be faced after a claim?

[mgoetze]

I don't think it would be practical.

[lexlogan]

Many of us do it routinely; why would it be impractical for everyone to do so?

[mgoetze]

Just seems that way to me, but then I haven't played with any of you yet, so I wouldn't really know.

[billw55]

Would anyone favor requiring all cards to be faced after a claim?

I would. By rule, play is supposed to stop after a claim anyway, so what harm could be done? Also if everyone revealed their hands, the incidence of "let's play on" would likely be reduced, sparing directors some headaches.

[GreenMan]

This seems like quite a niggling little thing to be making a rule out of.

[CSGibson]

I would only be in favor of such a law if it is enforced like use of the stop card is enforced - no penalty for infractions, but you may give up some of your rights if you fail to comply to the law and a situation arises that may have been ameliorated if you had followed the law.

[nige1]

A few weeks ago I was victimized by a concealed revoke: North showed out on the second club, I played her for length in spades, she in fact had a singleton spade and I was down an extra overtrick. After I got home I realized that South could not have 4128 shape and, checking the hand records, North revoked and then turned her cards face down when I claimed the last few tricks. I'm quite confident North was not aware of the revoke, and of course if I'd been more alert I'd've realized something was out of whack. But it's much easier to spot a revoke when you see the cards!

 

Anyway, the Laws disallow intentionally concealing a revoke but do not require everyone to face their cards when a claim is made. I routinley do so, and note that several players do likewise, but most turn their cards face down. Would anyone favor requiring all cards to be faced after a claim?

Completely agree. Amazingly, the current law doesn't even require declarer to show his hand!

[Free]

Seems like a bad idea, it's pampering people that don't count/think enough (which is what this game is all about). Moreover, if a claim requires every player to show his hand, then someone with a 2-way finesse can claim, look at opps cards and eventually say "I'll finesse that way".

[billw55]

Seems like a bad idea, it's pampering people that don't count/think enough (which is what this game is all about). Moreover, if a claim requires every player to show his hand, then someone with a 2-way finesse can claim, look at opps cards and eventually say "I'll finesse that way".

Obviously all the existing claim rules are enforced based on declarer's statement before seeing defender's hands. Although I suppose this opens new ground for the players to dispute the facts.

[helene_t]

obviously you don't show your hand before the claim has been accepted by both defenders.

 

Edit: oh well, maybe a defender needs to see his partner's hand before he can decide whether to accept or not. But in any case, you shouldn't show your hand before declarer's plan is clear to the defenders.

Edited August 23, 2013 by helene_t

[jeffford76]

Would anyone favor requiring all cards to be faced after a claim?

 

It would suffice for me if the law explicitly required any player to show their hand upon request from another player.

[mgoetze]

Obviously all the existing claim rules are enforced based on declarer's statement before seeing defender's hands. Although I suppose this opens new ground for the players to dispute the facts.

Or to quickly show their hand before declarer has had a chance to complete his claim statement?

[barmar]

This seems like quite a niggling little thing to be making a rule out of.

We have laws requiring players to count their cards before looking at their hand, shuffle them before putting them back in the board, and detailing how dummy's hand is laid out (I'll bet many players assume that putting trumps on dummy's right end is just a tradition -- it's actually a law). These all seem more "niggling" than a law that allows revokes to be discovered when claiming.

[billw55]

It would suffice for me if the law explicitly required any player to show their hand upon request from another player.

Good enough for me.

 

Or to quickly show their hand before declarer has had a chance to complete his claim statement?

If he does so, then the contents of the hand are AI, if declarer is smooth enough to incorporate them into his claim statement on the fly. Really this would be no different (to me) than a defender exposing his hand during play. Again, players are likely to dispute the facts, so maybe jeffford's version is best.

[mycroft]

I believe that it is legal to request someone show their hand, and, if refused, for cause, having the TD require them to show their hand. I don't think anything more need be available. I certainly don't want some of my more post-mortemier opponents to have the right to look at my hand for no bridge reason except more griping at his partner or mine (or me).

[Vampyr]

like use of the stop card is enforced - no penalty for infractions

 

Well, I would expect that repeated misuse/lack of use of the stop card would incur a PP, but I don't think the opponents would complain often.

[CSGibson]

Well, I would expect that repeated misuse/lack of use of the stop card would incur a PP, but I don't think the opponents would complain -- after all, if the stop card is not used, they can bid in whatever tempo they wish.

 

Lack of use has never incurred a PP in ACBL land. And opponents may not bid in whatever tempo they wish if you don't use it. Maybe its different in the UK.

 

The only advice I've gotten regarding use of the stop card are multiple people telling me that if you use it, always use it, and if you don't use it, always don't use it.

[barmar]

I believe that it is legal to request someone show their hand, and, if refused, for cause, having the TD require them to show their hand. I don't think anything more need be available.

I don't think there's any Law that specifically says that a player may request to see another player's hand, either during a claim or at some other time. There's also no Law saying they may not request, but there's no Law saying the request must be acceded to. When resolving a disputed claim, the TD may require players to show their hands.

 

I've probably led a sheltered life, because I don't think I've ever experienced a claim where the claimant didn't show his hand. I've probably conceded the remaining tricks as declarer occasionally without bothering to show my hand, although I think I usually do just out of habit. And when declarer is down to all trumps and isn't bothering to claim, I've probably made defensive concessions without showing anything (with a comment like "why are we still playing?").

[ehhh]

Revokes are missed more times than one images - sort of an iceberg thing.

Here is my suggestion:

Not being a very good counter and a better visual player such as yourself,

I make it a habit, when cards are turned down at the end of the hand, to ask for them to be faced.

This way it helps me with my weak counting issue as well as spotting inadvertent revokes.

[gordontd]

Well, I would expect that repeated misuse/lack of use of the stop card would incur a PP, but I don't think the opponents would complain often.

 

 

Lack of use has never incurred a PP in ACBL land.

I thought their use was optional in the ACBL.

[gnasher]

I thought their use was optional in the ACBL.

 

From http://web2.acbl.org/codification/CHAPTER%2012%20-%20Section%20A.pdf (a document whose status I'm unsure of).

 

Skip Bid Warning (953-102)

Previous regulations requiring a mandatory pause are rescinded and replaced with the following:

A. How and When Made

Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making an opening bid on the two level or higher, or prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding:

1. When bidding orally by saying, "I am a bout to make a skip bid. Please Wait!"

2. When using bidding boxes, by placing the stop card so the LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box.

B. Skip Bidder

The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply.

 

So it's not mandatory but you should do it all the time and you may be penalised for not doing so. Is that clearer?

[blackshoe]

About as much clearer as the usual ACBL dreck. B-)

[cloa513]

It should be mandatory to reveal all hand after the end of play- declarer might miss a revoke in normal play.

[mycroft]

I don't usually face my hand when *accepting* a claim, nor do I know anyone who does. But that's another question.

 

I have had (rare) occasions where they just claimed and put their hands in the box. I want to make it clear that ABSOLUTELY NEVER do I think, nor would I think, that those players were attempting to conceal a revoke; they either were assuming that it was as clear what they held to the opponents as it was to them, or claiming that, knowing it wasn't true, and playing their usual "very good, but any vig I can get can't hurt" game (usually accompanied by a "oh, you haven't figured it out yet? I'm sorry, I thought you [read: anyone who can play] had" response to me asking to see the cards).