Is this revoke established?

[Trinidad]

Rik, you make a good argument for the idea that other diamonds in the player's hand are not legal cards in the sense that phrase is used in Law 62B, although it took me a while to figure that out.

Thank you

Nice wall of text there. :P

Sorry

But it doesn't change the point I was trying to make, which is that you can't require the player to play his MPC before correcting his revoke. That would, of course, establish the revoke, but the requirement to follow suit is paramount, so the revoke must be corrected first.

I may have been unclear somewhere, but I never intended to say that the ♦10 was played and established the revoke. I always meant to say that the ♦10 was a penalty card and needed to be played at the earliest legal opportunity, i.e. to fix the revoke.

 

I still think that the order in which the infractions are fixed is arbitrary (the revoke does not need to be dealt with before the penalty card), but there is a chronological order in ruling: First all the rulings are made, then the players can get involved. Law 44C does not give a basis for dealing with the revoke first and certainly not for letting the player play before the issue with the penalty card is resolved.

Back to the original scenario: The TD will ask the players to face the trick in question, if it's not still faced. He will then instruct the offender that the trump on that trick is removed from the trick and becomes a major penalty card, which must be played at the first legal opportunity. The ♦10 is placed in the trick, and the trick is quitted. Now who won the trick? We don't know from the OP, but it doesn't matter, as there's no MPC on the table.

Well, the trump is still an MPC and should be lying somewhere on the table. :)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

the non trivial issue is the status of the DT.

 

That actually is the trivial issue. It is a major penalty card. The idea that a dropped card is a played card has been commented on very politely by gordon.

 

Rik

[pran]

It is not particularly clear whether a card exposed at one's turn to play, whether intentional or by accident, becomes a PC by that condition alone. However, L45C1a is clear it must be played to the current trick even if subject to some penalty.

 

** for the facts given, apparently the accidental nature is irrelevant wrt requiring the card be played to the current trick

 

A very common situation when I am called to a table because of a revoke is that the offender has subsequently exposed a card in the current suit.

 

First of all I must then establish whether he exposed that card in an action of playing it (to the next trick) or in an act of drawing attention to his revoke.

 

If he did not actually win the revoke trick then the answer is almost always obvious, he just drew attention to his revoke. But if he won the revoke trick (with a trump of course) then the question is crucial and often as difficult but important to answer as when a defender exposes a card below the rank of honours.

 

Just exposing it does not establish the revoke, which then must be corrected as prescribed in Law 62B. (The rank of the exposed card is irrelevant here.)

 

Leading the card does indeed establish the revoke, the revoke trick may not be corrected, and play continues. That is a huge difference.

[blackshoe]

I think "nonsense" is the polite way of expressing what I want to reply to this.

Thank you, Gordon. B-)

[blackshoe]

Thank you

 

Sorry

 

I may have been unclear somewhere, but I never intended to say that the ♦10 was played and established the revoke. I always meant to say that the ♦10 was a penalty card and needed to be played at the earliest legal opportunity, i.e. to fix the revoke.

 

I still think that the order in which the infractions are fixed is arbitrary (the revoke does not need to be dealt with before the penalty card), but there is a chronological order in ruling: First all the rulings are made, then the players can get involved. Law 44C does not give a basis for dealing with the revoke first and certainly not for letting the player play before the issue with the penalty card is resolved.

 

Well, the trump is still an MPC and should be lying somewhere on the table. :)

 

Rik

 

Okay, this is yet another proof that Bill Cosby was wrong. I am getting senile, and I do notice - at least after someone points out an error to me. :(

 

As to Law 44C and its applicability to this case, we disagree.

[VixTD]

This topic was prompted by a query from a recent graduate of a club TD course, who wrote to me:

 

Declarer led a diamond from dummy and declarer's left hand opponent (LHO) trumped with the ♠5. She then proceeded to lead the ♣A but as she did so she exposed the ♦10 (the card was stuck behind the ♣A in her hand). All players saw the ♣A and the ♦10 and the lady confessed to her revoke on the previous trick immediately and before anyone else played a card.

There was some doubt in his mind whether the ♣A had actually been led, so we entered into a discussion on when a card is considered played, and that took us to law 45C1 and the phrase "...held so that it is possible for partner to see its face...". This does not seem to require an intention to lead the card, but it must be "held" (for some purpose or other) in order for it to meet the conditions of the law.

 

Once we had sorted that one out, I thought it would be interesting to speculate on how to rule if she had exposed a card inadvertently and (at the same time) the revoke. It seems to have given you all food for thought. I agree with Trinidad, but I can see how there could be dissenting views.

[barmar]

There was some doubt in his mind whether the ♣A had actually been led, so we entered into a discussion on when a card is considered played, and that took us to law 45C1 and the phrase "...held so that it is possible for partner to see its face...". This does not seem to require an intention to lead the card, but it must be "held" (for some purpose or other) in order for it to meet the conditions of the law.

So if a player tosses his cards onto the table, is it considered played? I recall this being common in rubber bridge, since played cards go to the center of the table; it's not so common in duplicate, but I'll bet there are players with old habits.

[VixTD]

So if a player tosses his cards onto the table, is it considered played?

If the director determines that the intention of the player was to play the card, then yes. The law does not say "cards are only considered played by a defender if the defender is holding them" (or similar).

[pran]

[...]

we entered into a discussion on when a card is considered played, and that took us to law 45C1

[...]

 

Law 45 doesn't state when a card has been played, it states how a card is played (Law 45A&B and when it must be played (Law 45C).

 

When there is any doubt the Director must decide whether or not a card has been exposed in an act of playing it.

[blackshoe]

Law 45 doesn't state when a card has been played, it states how a card is played (Law 45A&B and when it must be played (Law 45C).

All right then. which law does state when a card has been played?

[pran]

All right then. which law does state when a card has been played?

 

None (explicitly) as far as I know.

It is a matter of fact which must be determined by the director when there is any reason for doubt.

[WellSpyder]

None (explicitly) as far as I know.

It is a matter of fact which must be determined by the director when there is any reason for doubt.

And would it be reasonable for the TD, when determining when a card is played, to take into account a law specifying how it is played? Perhaps the timing of the event(s) set out in describing how a card is played might also be a guide to the timing of when it is played?

[pran]

And would it be reasonable for the TD, when determining when a card is played, to take into account a law specifying how it is played? Perhaps the timing of the event(s) set out in describing how a card is played might also be a guide to the timing of when it is played?

Sure.

 

But be aware that there are reasons why Laws 24 and 50 distinguish between cards exposed accidentally and cards exposed in an act of playing.

 

Note also the explicite statement in Law 50B that when two cards are played simultaneously then only one of them (at the choice of the offender) shall be considered played, the other shall be deemed accidentally exposed.

[richlp]

Declarer calls for a diamond from dummy, RHO and declarer follow suit, and LHO ruffs. LHO then drops the ten of diamonds accidentally.

 

Does this establish the revoke? Would it make any difference if they had dropped a card of another suit accidentally and then announced that they had revoked on the diamond lead?

 

I have a question about a different, but I think related, situation.

 

LHO trumps the trick and then says, "oops, I have a diamond"

The director is called, establishes the trump as a penalty card, and instructs the player to play a diamond.

While fanning his hand to pick out a diamond, the 10 falls out. It was clearly not played with intent.

Can LHO substitute another card for his accidentally exposed 10 of diamonds - leaving him with 2 penalty cards?

 

Is this situation sufficiently different from the original post to warrant a different answer?