Easy Book Ruling .... or not?

[DaveB]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhtdc&w=shd98c&n=shd62c&e=sthd3c]399|300[/hv]

 

The above 2 card ending was reached at our local duplicate.

West was on lead with ♠ as trumps.

On the ♦ lead, East ruffed (!!!!). South overruffed and cashed his ♥

 

South noticed the revoke so summoned the Director.

I applied L62D - substituting the 3♦ for the 10♠ on trick 12,

thereby transferring one trick from the NON offending side to the OFFENDING side.

 

Do you think this ruling was correct?

[ahydra]

Yes, that looks correct (even though the "backwards rectification" seems a bit odd). Law 64B, point (6)

 

ahydra

[barmar]

The standard revoke rules don't apply to a revoke on trick 12. You simply determine what would have happened if the offending player had followed suit.

[steve2005]

The standard revoke rules don't apply to a revoke on trick 12. You simply determine what would have happened if the offending player had followed suit.

EXACTLY

[DaveB]

I am not sure it is as simple as that.

 

Consider L9B1c - Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any

rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

With no Director call, the cards are returned to the board and Declarer is entitled

to the score for both the last two tricks.

 

Also (maybe) L12B3 - The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a

non-offending side .....

 

Here there is no damage (to a non-offender) so no adjustment.

[campboy]

This isn't a score adjustment, so Law 12B3 is irrelevant. The revoke must be corrected, so play continues with East following suit on trick 12.

 

Declarer was never "entitled" to both the tricks (either defender could have drawn attention to the revoke, with the same result) so he didn't have any rights to lose.

 

It's not quite as simple as that, because the writers of the law seem to have forgotten that a player who revoked on trick 12 may have already played to trick 13. (He needs to withdraw both cards to correct the revoke, but the law only actually allows him to withdraw the first.)

[pran]

This isn't a score adjustment, so Law 12B3 is irrelevant. The revoke must be corrected, so play continues with East following suit on trick 12.

 

Declarer was never "entitled" to both the tricks (either defender could have drawn attention to the revoke, with the same result) so he didn't have any rights to lose.

 

It's not quite as simple as that, because the writers of the law seem to have forgotten that a player who revoked on trick 12 may have already played to trick 13. (He needs to withdraw both cards to correct the revoke, but the law only actually allows him to withdraw the first.)

It is as simple as that!

 

1. On the twelfth trick, a revoke, even if established, must be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board.

 

2. If a revoke by a defender occurs on the twelfth trick and before it was the turn of his partner to play to the trick, when offender’s partner has cards of two suits he may not choose the play that could possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card.

The Law says "even if established" so the writers can hardly have forgotten that an offender may have already played to trick 13.

[blackshoe]

Yes, this is an easy book ruling. Moved to Simple Rulings. B-)

[campboy]

The Law says "even if established" so the writers can hardly have forgotten that an offender may have already played to trick 13.

That's not the law I was talking about. The problem is law 62B, which says "To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." But if this offender withdraws the card he played he doesn't have another card to substitute, unless he also withdraws the card he played to trick 13. In practice this is how we interpret it: he withdraws both cards and swaps them over. But that is not what the law says.

[RSliwinski]

It is as simple as that!

 

 

The Law says "even if established" so the writers can hardly have forgotten that an offender may have already played to trick 13.

But Campboy's remark is directed towards 62 B which describes how to correct a revoke. The description seeems also to me not to fit the case when the revoker has already played to 13th trick.

 

62 B. Correcting a Revoke

To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card.

1. A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand.

2. The card may be replaced without further rectification if it was played from declarer’s (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or dummy’s hand, or if it was a defender’s faced card.

[RSliwinski]

That's not the law I was talking about. The problem is law 62B, which says "To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." But if this offender withdraws the card he played he doesn't have another card to substitute, unless he also withdraws the card he played to trick 13. In practice this is how we interpret it: he withdraws both cards and swaps them over. But that is not what the law says.

Sorry for an unnecessary reply. I did not see yours.

[dburn]

Decent of South, in the circumstances. After all, he could just have scored it up and moved on. Had he done so, at what point would East-West have been unable to have the score changed?

[blackshoe]

At the end of the correction period, I expect.

 

"South noticed the revoke, so called the director" sounds like he noticed when East played the ♦3 on trick 13 - the last play to that trick.

 

This boils down, of course, to "how does the director handle a case where a revoke occurred on trick twelve, and cards have been played to trick thirteen?" The law is not explicit, but it makes no sense if the director is not to instruct that cards played to trick 13 be withdrawn in the course of rectification.

 

In any case, here it seems obvious that the only possible outcome is to award one each of the last two tricks to each side. Yes, that means the offending side gets back a trick they "gave up" by revoking. Thank you, declarer. Next hand.

[pran]

That's not the law I was talking about. The problem is law 62B, which says "To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." But if this offender withdraws the card he played he doesn't have another card to substitute, unless he also withdraws the card he played to trick 13. In practice this is how we interpret it: he withdraws both cards and swaps them over. But that is not what the law says.

Have you noticed that Law 62D is a more precise Law than Law 62B and therefore takes precedence?

 

Law 62B is not the correct Law to use (for any purpose) on a revoke in trick twelve.

[campboy]

Decent of South, in the circumstances. After all, he could just have scored it up and moved on. Had he done so, at what point would East-West have been unable to have the score changed?

Once all four hands had been returned to the board (62D1). If the revoke had damaged NOS then they could still get equity restored up to the end of the correction period (64C), but that isn't the case here.

[RSliwinski]

Have you noticed that Law 62D is a more precise Law than Law 62B and therefore takes precedence?

 

Law 62B is not the correct Law to use (for any purpose) on a revoke in trick twelve.

You were little to fast, Sven. Law 62 B is the correct Law to use for correcting all non established revokes even for non established revokes on trick twelve.

But what Campboy had showed is that it cannot be used for correcting established revokes on trick twelve.

[pran]

Have you noticed that Law 62D is a more precise Law than Law 62B and therefore takes precedence?

Law 62B is not the correct Law to use (for any purpose) on a revoke in trick twelve.

You were little to fast, Sven. Law 62 B is the correct Law to use for correcting all non established revokes even for non established revokes on trick twelve.

But what Campboy had showed is that it cannot be used for correcting established revokes on trick twelve.

Sorry to argue with you but Law 62D explicitly applies to any (and every) revoke on trick 12 whether it is established (which usually implies that offending side has also played to trick 13) or not. As Law 62D is a specific Law it overrides the more general Law 62B where there might be any conflict.

 

Law 62D clearly states (without going into details) that the offender must substitute his last card for his offending card played so that the offending card will become his play to trick 13. (And there is no question about penalty cards or the like as specified in Law 62B.)

 

The only point which needs clarification in this process is the situation successfully handled by Law 62D2 (offender's partner has a choice which of two cards to play in trick 12).

[RSliwinski]

Sorry to argue with you but Law 62D explicitly applies to any (and every) revoke on trick 12 whether it is established (which usually implies that offending side has also played to trick 13) or not. As Law 62D is a specific Law it overrides the more general Law 62B where there might be any conflict.

 

Law 62D clearly states (without going into details) that the offender must substitute his last card for his offending card played so that the offending card will become his play to trick 13. (And there is no question about penalty cards or the like as specified in Law 62B.)

 

The only point which needs clarification in this process is the situation successfully handled by Law 62D2 (offender's partner has a choice which of two cards to play in trick 12).

[hv=pc=n&s=shad2c&w=s2h2dc&n=s3hd3c&e=shdakc]399|300[/hv]

South is in a ♠ contract. He plays ♥A, West revokes by ruffing with ♠2, South plays ♠3 from dummy and East ♦A. Now West discovers his revoke. TL is called. How is revoke to be corrected? There is not sufficient guidance in 62D even if we were to buy your story that "Law 62D clearly states (without going into details) that the offender must substitute his last card for his offending card played so that the offending card will become his play to trick 13". Where in 62D is the permission for South to change the play of ♠3 from dummy? No, we have to go to 62B to find it. So your statement that "Law 62B is not the correct Law to use (for any purpose) on a revoke in trick twelve" seems to me incorrect. And the question about penalty cards or the like as specified in Law 62B is completely harmless as there is only one card left in each hand.

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=shad2c&w=s2h2dc&n=s3hd3c&e=shdakc]399|300[/hv]

South is in a ♠ contract. He plays ♥A, West revokes by ruffing with ♠2, South plays ♠3 from dummy and East ♦A. Now West discovers his revoke. TL is called. How is revoke to be corrected? There is not sufficient guidance in 62D even if we were to buy your story that "Law 62D clearly states (without going into details) that the offender must substitute his last card for his offending card played so that the offending card will become his play to trick 13". Where in 62D is the permission for South to change the play of ♠3 from dummy? No, we have to go to 62B to find it. So your statement that "Law 62B is not the correct Law to use (for any purpose) on a revoke in trick twelve" seems to me incorrect. And the question about penalty cards or the like as specified in Law 62B is completely harmless as there is only one card left in each hand.

Are you by any chance aware of Law 47D? (Law 62C1 and 62C2 can also sometimes be used with the same result.)

[RSliwinski]

Are you by any chance aware of Law 47D? (Law 62C1 and 62C2 can also sometimes be used with the same result.)

Sure, i am aware about that 47D but I still cannot understand that you can infer any description from how to correct a revoke at trick 12 from a simple statement in 62 D that a revoke on trick 12 must be corrected. The natural reading is to correct according to the rules for correcting (i.e. 62B) but this wrong when it comes to established revokes so you may be right that the word "correcting" in 62 D is not to be interpret that way. Anyway as long as it comes to non-established revokes we get the same result by using 62B with addition of 62D2 (which is just a clarification that 16 D apples).

[pran]

Sure, i am aware about that 47D but I still cannot understand that you can infer any description from how to correct a revoke at trick 12 from a simple statement in 62 D that a revoke on trick 12 must be corrected. The natural reading is to correct according to the rules for correcting (i.e. 62B) but this wrong when it comes to established revokes so you may be right that the word "correcting" in 62 D is not to be interpret that way. Anyway as long as it comes to non-established revokes we get the same result by using 62B with addition of 62D2 (which is just a clarification that 16 D apples).

 

OH come on! Do I really have to spell it out - dot the i's and cross the t's?

 

After a revoke in trick 12 the offender must withdraw the offending card he played and substitute his other remaining card to that trick.

Then, if his LHO has subsequently played any card to that trick he may withdraw it and substitute his other remaining card to that trick.

Then the same principle applies to offender's partner except that Law 62D2 must not be overlooked.

And finally the same principle applies to the fourth player if the revoke was a failure to lead a card required by Law, or from a rectification after an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

Decent of South, in the circumstances. After all, he could just have scored it up and moved on. Had he done so, at what point would East-West have been unable to have the score changed?

 

Once all four hands had been returned to the board (62D1). If the revoke had damaged NOS then they could still get equity restored up to the end of the correction period (64C), but that isn't the case here.

I disagree. The revoke was discovered before all four hands were returned to the board, but the director wasn't told about it when called to the table. 62D1 doesn't apply.

[axman]

Sure, i am aware about that 47D but I still cannot understand that you can infer any description from how to correct a revoke at trick 12 from a simple statement in 62 D that a revoke on trick 12 must be corrected. The natural reading is to correct according to the rules for correcting (i.e. 62B) but this wrong when it comes to established revokes so you may be right that the word "correcting" in 62 D is not to be interpret that way. Anyway as long as it comes to non-established revokes we get the same result by using 62B with addition of 62D2 (which is just a clarification that 16 D apples).

 

Some consternation has arisen with respect to dealing with a T12 revoke that has been established. Having suffered from such a situation on 2/4/1998 when holding two aces- one of them trump, and electing to revoke with the trump at T12 Ill offer a word or two.

 

It has been argued that 62D but not 62B applies. Well, it is both that apply; yet it is a dubious undertaking. Why dubious? In this case the law 62D specifies the revoke be corrected. L62 specifies what to do. And what does it specify? That revoker L62B1 withdraw the revoke card and it becomes a PC; plus he substitute L62B a legal card. It seems silly to point out that revoker's only card not belonging to a trick is his PC- but that is indeed the case. Irrespective of following suit or not that PC is the only legal card revoker can substitute to T12- if L59 has anything to say to the matter.

 

Some believe we ought to pursue lawlessness, but I do not count myself among them- as my fundamental belief is that the only way to obtain good law is to rigorously abide by the law we got.

[barmar]

I think it's pretty obvious what the revoker has to do, and that declarer is allowed to change his play from dummy after revoker changes his cards.

 

How about revoker's partner? The withdrawn card should be UI to him, so he shouldn't be allowed to base his choice of what to play on the corrected T12 on knowing his partner has that card, unless other information (e.g. the bidding or earlier play in the suit) has made it very likely.

[Siegmund]

Decent of South, in the circumstances. After all, he could just have scored it up and moved on. Had he done so, at what point would East-West have been unable to have the score changed?

Is it merely "decent", or South's obligation to give back that trick?

79A2: A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

We are talking here about a trick that could not be lost by the defense by any legal play of the cards, and which will not be lost of the revoke penalty in the book is applied either. You can say that his side did in fact win the trick (after an illegal play by East), and the hand was played to the end so no concessions happened -- but I personally would feel awkward about accepting this trick, and in fact would think South a complete cad, if perhaps not quite a cheat, if he hurried on to the next board to keep this trick.