Attempting to prevent partner's revoke as defender

[jallerton]

I've had a couple of situations of the type below over the last week. I show just the spade suit:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat4hdc&w=sj962hdc&n=skq85hdc&e=s73hdc]399|300[/hv]

 

You are East. Declarer (South) plays in NT having denied 4 spades in the auction. Partner leads ♠2 (leading style: 4th highest leads from length to an honour, 2nd highest without an honour). Declarer wins trick 1 with ♠10, cashes ♠A (all follow), plays ♠4 to the 9 and Q so you discard. Now at trick 4 declarer plays ♠K, discard from you, discard from declarer and partner starts thinking.

 

You know from the bidding and play in the spade suit that partner has the remaining spade (the jack) but you also know (from UI) that she appears to be thinking about what to discard, apparently having forgotten that she has a spade left.

 

Can you say anything to stop partner revoking?

 

At the table, I did nothing as I am familiar with the wording of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 regarding communication with partner.

 

Subsequently it occurred to me that a different Law could be relevant:

 

Law 9A3. When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

 

Does this Law permit me to remind partner of her requirement to follow suit? If it does, how can I do so without breaching Law 73? Or should I adopt the WBLFC approach of pretending that Law 73 does not exist when it suits me?

 

Alternatively, is it acceptable for me to ask declarer "Have you no more spades?" (Law 61B3) in the belief that declarer is unlikely to have revoked but secretly hoping that partner will overhear and be woken up? Or is that an improper question solely for partner's benefit (Law 20G1)? [Yes I know that Law 20 is titled "REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS"] but we are told in the Introduction to the Laws that "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law".]

 

Which Laws take priority and why?

[sanst]

I don't think this should be in the Simple Rulings forum, since it's far from simple. But I don't think you're allowed to make a remark before partner has played. You're allowed to ask your partner about a revoke, but you can't ask about one if there hasn't been one yet. You're not telepathic I hope, so you can't know what your partner is thinking about. You just assume that it's about a discard, forgetting his last spade, but maybe it's about something totally different, like forgotten lights, the great sex last night or the sick but constantly barking dog of the neighbours.

You state that you know that your partner has the last spade, but you can't be absolutely certain. South might have that last spade hiding between his clubs and your partner might have played the two by mistake. Yes, such coincidence is highly unlikely but not impossible.

[aguahombre]

Good questions. I know what I have done --- made some wise ass remark that partner is thinking about which spade to play. It was just knee-jerk on my part, and I don't think anyone considered it revoke prevention at the time. I know I have never been called to rule on this.

 

But, now that you have ruined my fun by bringing up the subject, I think the proper action is to sit there silently and patiently, let it happen, and then say "No Spades, Partner?" The penalty card will remain one. Oh, well. No revoke is established.

 

If someone can justify intervening before partner discards, I will hear their points (adhere"?); but I don't think I will do it as a player.

 

So, if I am the Director, someone else's guidance in this thread will be useful.

[blackshoe]

Actually, Agua, I believe you have this one right. B-)

[pran]

Actually, Agua, I believe you have this one right. B-)

Indeed

[mycroft]

Well, that's the converse to the (rather sarcastic) comment from declarer I hear occasionally - although usually after the hand:

 

"So, were you thinking which half of the jack to play, or what?"

 

Of course, more than once I've been convinced (as dummy) that the "thinker" knew exactly what she was doing.

[barmar]

Lots of time when someone goes into the tank when they really have nothing to think about, they later say they were thinking about what they were going to do next -- they just didn't realize that they still needed to play to that trick. This seems to be most common if they're going to win the trick.

[jallerton]

I don't think this should be in the Simple Rulings forum, since it's far from simple. But I don't think you're allowed to make a remark before partner has played. You're allowed to ask your partner about a revoke, but you can't ask about one if there hasn't been one yet. You're not telepathic I hope, so you can't know what your partner is thinking about. You just assume that it's about a discard, forgetting his last spade, but maybe it's about something totally different, like forgotten lights, the great sex last night or the sick but constantly barking dog of the neighbours.

You state that you know that your partner has the last spade, but you can't be absolutely certain. South might have that last spade hiding between his clubs and your partner might have played the two by mistake. Yes, such coincidence is highly unlikely but not impossible.

 

Perhaps you are right. The forum rules state that "This particular forum is for book ruling-type queries" and I posted my query here thinking that the Law Book should really provide the answer to this type of question. One might conclude from the brevity of their replies that Pran and Blackshoe regard the answer as simple and obvious, but I was rather hoping that somebody could explain which of the Laws I quoted do or do not apply in this scenario, and why.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat4hdc&w=sj962hdc&n=skq85hdc&e=s73hdc]300|300|I've had a couple of situations of the type below over the last week. I show just the spade suit:You are East. Declarer (South) plays in NT having denied 4 spades in the auction. Partner leads ♠2 (leading style: 4th highest leads from length to an honour, 2nd highest without an honour). Declarer wins trick 1 with ♠10, cashes ♠A (all follow), plays ♠4 to the 9 and Q so you discard. Now at trick 4 declarer plays ♠K, discard from you, discard from declarer and partner starts thinking.You know from the bidding and play in the spade suit that partner has the remaining spade (the jack) but you also know (from UI) that she appears to be thinking about what to discard, apparently having forgotten that she has a spade left. Can you say anything to stop partner revoking? At the table, I did nothing as I am familiar with the wording of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 regarding communication with partner. Subsequently it occurred to me that a different Law could be relevant:Does this Law permit me to remind partner of her requirement to follow suit? If it does, how can I do so without breaching Law 73? Or should I adopt the WBLFC approach of pretending that Law 73 does not exist when it suits me? Alternatively, is it acceptable for me to ask declarer "Have you no more spades?" (Law 61B3) in the belief that declarer is unlikely to have revoked but secretly hoping that partner will overhear and be woken up? Or is that an improper question solely for partner's benefit (Law 20G1)? [Yes I know that Law 20 is titled "REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS"] but we are told in the Introduction to the Laws that "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law".]Which Laws take priority and why?[/hv]

I don't think current laws resolve jallerton's dilemma. A director would be justified in ruling either way. Ambiguities like this accord with the law-makers' stated intention to devolve more power to directors. IMO, a retrograde step.

 

Incidentally, asking "Having none?" often conveys information. The law allowing such questions is one of many spurious rules that add complexity -- but no value -- and should be dropped.

[pran]

I don't think current laws resolve jallerton's dilemma. A director would be justified in ruling either way. Ambiguities like this accord with the law-makers' stated intention to devolve more power to directors. IMO, a retrograde step.

 

Incidentally, asking "Having none?" often conveys information. The law allowing such questions is one of many spurious rules that add complexity -- but no value -- and should be dropped.

There is no dilemma here: A defender is never permitted to prevent his partner from revoking, but Law 61 allows him to ask his partner who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.

[barmar]

There is no dilemma here: A defender is never permitted to prevent his partner from revoking, but Law 61 allows him to ask his partner who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.

What that law allows is for him to prevent the revoke from becoming established.

 

I think this is just one of those things that players have been doing for ages, and the lawmakers felt they had to capitulate and legalize it, much like the law that explains how to interpret incomplete designations of dummy's cards.

[pran]

There is no dilemma here: A defender is never permitted to prevent his partner from revoking, but Law 61 allows him to ask his partner who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.

 

 

What that law allows is for him to prevent the revoke from becoming established.

Exactly!

 

I think this is just one of those things that players have been doing for ages, and the lawmakers felt they had to capitulate and legalize it, much like the law that explains how to interpret incomplete designations of dummy's cards.

[gnasher]

There is no dilemma here: A defender is never permitted to prevent his partner from revoking, but Law 61 allows him to ask his partner who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.

Using an irritating font doesn't actually make your words true. Which law says that a defender is never permitted to prevent his partner from revoking, and why does that override the one that says that "any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity"?

[pran]

Which law says that a defender is never permitted to prevent his partner from revoking,

Communication between partners during [...] play shall be effected only by means of [...] plays.

1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.

[...]

3. Defenders may [...] unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information).

and why does that override the one that says that "any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity"?

Until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity, you are communicating with him by illegal means.

 

Sorry that my attempts to emphasize what I consider important parts in quotations offend you.

[barmar]

Using an irritating font doesn't actually make your words true.

I can't find the setting that does this, but for some reason I never see custom fonts or size changes in posts. I see bold/italics/etc.

 

I wonder if it's just something built in that protects moderators.

[pran]

I can't find the setting that does this, but for some reason I never see custom fonts or size changes in posts. I see bold/italics/etc.

 

I wonder if it's just something built in that protects moderators.

I don't know if this is specific for Internet Explorer but when I type in text for a post I have several font and special character selectors just above the frame where I type my text.

 

One row has among other symbols: B, I, U and S for Bold, Italics, Underscore and Strikethrough

The next row has ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ (and a symbol for Twitter, I don't know how to use that).

 

If this is special for IE I assume that other WEB-Readers have similar facitilies?

[blackshoe]

The question "having none?" does not in itself convey any information other than that the asker is exercising his right to confirm that the target of his question has no more of the suit, thus preventing the establishment of a revoke. The manner in which the question is asked may convey information — if the asker is clearly surprised that someone has shown out, for example, it would indicate that his own holding in the suit (plus other information, such as from the previous play and the bidding) led him to believe no one should yet be out of the suit.

 

Law 61B1 says "declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led" (my emphasis). 61B3 says "defenders … may ask one another." So you can't ask the question until partner actually fails to follow suit. This is why I answered as I did earlier. But the question posed by Jeffrey is a bit different. He postulates a siituation in which you have reason to believe that partner's "thinking" means he's about to commit an irregularity and asks "can you attempt to stop him?"

 

The question can be re-stated, I think, as "amongst the proprieties expressed in Laws 73A1 and 73B1 and the general Law 9A3, which takes precedence?" Prior to the inclusion of the proprieties as laws in their own right (1997 or earlier, quite possibly much earlier, I think) the answer to this would have been "Law 9A3". In the current milieu, I think the principle that "the specific takes precedence over the general" would suggest that Laws 73A1 and73B1 take precedence. But there's perhaps more to it than that: Law 9A3 is about attempting to prevent an irregularity. Law 73 is about communicating with partner. If the potential irregularity is partner's, it is, I would say, impossible to exercise the right in Law 9A3 without violating 73A1, at least. So either the law is fatally flawed, or 9A3 takes precedence over 73A1 in spite of the latter being more specific. As for 73B1, if the question is a violation of this law, then it must fall under "extraneous remark" as nothing else in that law fits. But Chapter One of the Laws defines "extraneous" as "not part of the lawful procedures of the game", and attempting to prevent an irregularity is most certainly a lawful procedure. So asking the question does not violate Law 73B1.

 

Conclusion: Law 9A3 takes precedence over both 73A1 and 73B1 with respect to questions or comments intended to prevent partner from committing an irregularity.

 

See? Simple. :D

[nige1]

The question "having none?" does not in itself convey any information other than that the asker is exercising his right to confirm that the target of his question has no more of the suit, thus preventing the establishment of a revoke. The manner in which the question is asked may convey information — if the asker is clearly surprised that someone has shown out, for example, it would indicate that his own holding in the suit (plus other information, such as from the previous play and the bidding) led him to believe no one should yet be out of the suit.

Some defenders don't bother to ask their partner "Having none?" when they know he has none. i.e they don't ask when they can see the remaining cards of the suit in dummy and in their own hand. Hence, whenever such a player does ask "Having None?", he tells his partner that declarer still has cards in the suit.

 

I agree with the the rest of blackshoe's argument; and I think it answers jallerton's question; but the laws are ambiguous enough to stretch to Sven Pran's interpretation: as usual, the law is incomprehensible to players; once again, the director is free to rule on a whim.

[Vampyr]

I think this is just one of those things that players have been doing for ages, and the lawmakers felt they had to capitulate and legalize it,

 

Nobody did it here when we had, and exercised, the option to make it illegal. Ah, those were the days.

 

You can still make it illegal really; the Laws contain no prescribed penalty, but obviously a NBO can assign whatever penalty they wish. I will never understand why the EBU have not done this,

[scarletv]

LAW 61

"3. Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating

Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized

information)."

 

My NBO as regulating authority decided to forbid questioning partner as defenders. When still asking though not allowed the played card has to be corrected but rectification takes place as if a revoke has happened.

[campboy]

Until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity, you are communicating with him by illegal means.

Isn't the opposite true? If you wait until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity; you are drawing attention to an irregularity he's already committed.

[aguahombre]

Isn't the opposite true? If you wait until your partner has failed to follow suit you are not attempting to prevent him from committing an irregularity; you are drawing attention to an irregularity he's already committed.

You are preventing the establishment of a revoke -- a separate irregularity. You may or may not be drawing attention to an irregularity already committed. Maybe he actually was out of the suit.

[RMB1]

You are preventing the establishment of a revoke -- a separate irregularity. ...

Why is establishing a revoke an irregularity? Is it irregular for the offending side to play to the next trick?

[barmar]

I don't know if this is specific for Internet Explorer but when I type in text for a post I have several font and special character selectors just above the frame where I type my text.

I know how to change the font and size when I'm composing a message. But when someone else does that in their post, I don't see it in their chosen font/size.

 

The interesting thing is that I see the font and style changes in THIS message, perhaps because it's by myself.

[aguahombre]

I know how to change the font and size when I'm composing a message. But when someone else does that in their post, I don't see it in their chosen font/size.

 

The interesting thing is that I see the font and style changes in THIS message, perhaps because it's by myself.

And how will we know when our attempt to emphasize a particular word reaches the point of annoyance to Andy? PhilK and Timo might want the answer to that.