Two revokes

[ddrankin]

At a tournament last week, I was called to the table at the conclusion of play, and told by declarer that his RHO has revoked on the third trick. His LHO then said that declarer had revoked at trick 12. Declarer had won the opening lead and played two rounds of trump, in a 5-4 fit. He thought everyone followed to the two rounds, but his RHO had discarded while holding a trump. Later in the play, he played a trump to the board, and was surprised to see RHO follow. But he played on to the last two tricks. Holding the last trump and a high heart in his hand, he led a heart from the board and trumped it. Then he faced his high heart.

 

Now Law 62D says that a revoke at trick 12, even if established, must be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board. Law 64B6 & 7 state that there is no rectification if (6) it is a revoke at trick 12 or (7) when both sides have revoked on the same trick.

 

I ruled no rectification based on 64B7 (and that 64C did not change the result because the result was the same as that would have resulted if neither side had revoked since neither revoke resulted in an advantage.)

 

But I am wondering if the specific reference to trick 12 revokes in 62D is applied first, and that the provisions of 64B7 do not apply.

 

I would appreciate any opinions and the reasoning behind them. I do intend to ask a few members of the Laws Commission in Phoenix next month, as well.

[chrism]

You misquote 64B7 - it applies to both sides revoking on the same *board*, not *trick*, but from your correct ruling I take it that is just a typo.

 

There is no rectification for the trick 12 revoke (64B6), but it is still a revoke so 64B7 still applies.

[chrism]

I note that 64B7 simply says that there is no rectification "when both sides have revoked on the same board". It does not refer to established revokes, so a literal reading would deny rectification for an established revoke by one side if the other side had a corrected revoke during the hand.

 

I doubt that this is the intent of the law. Do others believe that 64B7 should be interpreted as though it read "when both sides have established revokes on the same board", or applied literally?

[chrism]

64B7 makes no reference to established revokes. Do we believe that it is intended to apply to cases where one side has corrected an unestablished revoke in accordance with Law 62 and the other side has an established revoke?

That would be my literal reading, but I am not comfortable that it is the intent of the law.

[RMB1]

Law 64B7 does not mention established revokes, but the first line of Law 64B says "following an established revoke",

before the numbered sub-parts. So Law 64B7 applies if there has been two revokes and at least one of them was established.

 

I agree that this appears wrong: if there has been a corrected revoke the opponents have carte blanche to revoke.

[ddrankin]

You misquote 64B7 - it applies to both sides revoking on the same *board*, not *trick*, but from your correct ruling I take it that is just a typo.

 

There is no rectification for the trick 12 revoke (64B6), but it is still a revoke so 64B7 still applies.

 

Indeed it was a typo. I was on my second glass of wine.

[ddrankin]

Law 64B7 does not mention established revokes, but the first line of Law 64B says "following an established revoke",

before the numbered sub-parts. So Law 64B7 applies if there has been two revokes and at least one of them was established.

 

I agree that this appears wrong: if there has been a corrected revoke the opponents have carte blanche to revoke.

 

I will pose this as well to the ACBLLC members when I see them in Phoenix.

[WellSpyder]

I wonder whether Lamford can tell us about what happened when the SB found himself in a similar position at the club last night? :)

[Vampyr]

I will pose this as well to the ACBLLC members when I see them in Phoenix.

 

This is all very silly. The law cannot relate to unestablished revokes, because these are dealt with, ie as penalty cards, during the play.

 

Also bear in mind that the ACBLLC's word cannot be taken as official unless they are relaying what has been told to them by the WBFLC.

[campboy]

Law 64B7 does not mention established revokes, but the first line of Law 64B says "following an established revoke",

before the numbered sub-parts. So Law 64B7 applies if there has been two revokes and at least one of them was established.

 

I agree that this appears wrong: if there has been a corrected revoke the opponents have carte blanche to revoke.

Well, if there is a corrected revoke followed by an established revoke by the other side you can still apply 64C to the second revoke.

[gnasher]

Also bear in mind that the ACBLLC's word cannot be taken as official unless they are relaying what has been told to them by the WBFLC.

The ACBLLC's word is official in the ACBL. The ACBL doesn't recognise any higher authority.

[blackshoe]

Also bear in mind that the ACBLLC's word cannot be taken as official unless they are relaying what has been told to them by the WBFLC.

Hah! Would that it were so. The ACBLLC's word is gospel in North America, at least*, and possibly in the Western Hemisphere**. At least, that's my understanding of the ACBL position. It is true, though, that the opinion of one or more members of the ACBLLC is just that — their opinion — unless the LC as a whole has issued an official interpretation. If the LC has not done so, I"m pretty sure members would specify that their opinion has no official standing.

 

* Because the ACBL BoD has said so.

 

** Because the ACBL holds the copyright on the laws there. I'm less sure that the ACBL asserts that the ACBLLC's opinion governs in South and Central America and the Caribbean, though. Might be interesting to know what those NBOs think.

[chrism]

This is all very silly. The law cannot relate to unestablished revokes, because these are dealt with, ie as penalty cards, during the play.

 

Also bear in mind that the ACBLLC's word cannot be taken as official unless they are relaying what has been told to them by the WBFLC.

I agree that a literal reading of 64B7 leads to a silly conclusion, and that it should not relate to unestablished revokes. However, the fact that an unestablished revoke is dealt with elsewhere in the Laws certainly does not mean that it thereby ceased to be a revoke, and there is no intrinsic bar to having multiple laws relate to it. Compare trick 12 revokes: Law 61A defines, inter alia, a failure to follow suit when able to do so (including at trick 12) as a revoke, Law 62D1 requires it to be corrected (but it is still a revoke), and Law 63A defines whether it is established (but it is still a revoke either way). The fact that all of these laws have "dealt with" the trick 12 revoke do not preclude 64B6 from applying to it.