Revoke ruling

[BudH]

[hv=pc=n&s=st3haq987d5ckq643&w=sj65hj2dq762cat87&n=sakq72h43da94cj92&e=s984hkt65dkjt83c5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1np2hp2np3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This is from the Monday afternoon November 2 afternoon Common Game. (http://www.thecommongame.com/Results/20151102Rank.html#tab_board_20)

 

You are called to the table and told East revoked at trick 6, pitching his singleton club.

 

Opening lead was a diamond to West's queen. Declarer ducked twice, won the third diamond, then cashed three top spades, with East's revoke occurring on the third spade.

 

Declarer switched to clubs at trick 7. West won the ace, returned a diamond, East cashed out diamonds and the spade 9 (which should have been played on the third spade). 6 tricks for the defense, 7 tricks for declarer, down 2 in 3NT.

 

The Law 64A2 penalty is a one trick transfer, resulting in down 1 instead of down 2. What does the Law 64C (equity) lead you to rule as a result if you are the Director if West is:

 

(a) a moderate Flight C player with a year of experience, or

 

(b) a low to average level Flight B player, or

 

(c ) a high level Flight B or low level Flight A player

[mgoetze]

I guess you are talking about West's skill level because you are implying that he might discard his diamond on the run of the spades? Even for a relatively new player, I would consider that a careless rather than a normal play, and unlike for a bad claim, Law 64C does not require you to presume careless play, so one off is always the normal result. I suppose if your jurisdiction allows weighted scores you could give 10% or 5% or whatever of 3NT= but I doubt it's going to make anyone happier.

[BudH]

I guess you are talking about West's skill level because you are implying that he might discard his diamond on the run of the spades? Even for a relatively new player, I would consider that a careless rather than a normal play, and unlike for a bad claim, Law 64C does not require you to presume careless play, so one off is always the normal result. I suppose if your jurisdiction allows weighted scores you could give 10% or 5% or whatever of 3NT= but I doubt it's going to make anyone happier.

 

The reason I focused on West's skill is if declarer decides after cashing five spades to take a heart finesse, which this time succeeds, and then either immediately or after cashing the heart ace lead a low club towards his J9x, will West ever duck, allowing 3NT to make?

[helene_t]

But if East discards a diamond it will also make (or if he discards two hearts but we can probably assume that he will dicard a club).

 

Edit: oh yes, W might duck a club. All in all there is probably enough possibilities for 3NT= for that to be a possible result.

[billw55]

I guess you are talking about West's skill level because you are implying that he might discard his diamond on the run of the spades?

To nitpick, east could also discard a diamond, or even two hearts, although either play would be irrational. So 3NT-1 seems right.

 

The problem I have with this is that EW get a result no worse than they would have received without the revoke. This creates situations such as this hand, where players can revoke for free: gaining if they get away with it, and losing nothing if caught. For this reason, I favor mandatory minimum penalties for some infractions.

 

 

[biggerclub]

players can revoke for free: gaining if they get away with it, and losing nothing if caught.

 

Not exactly the case. See Law 72B1. Of course, proving intent may prove difficult.

[billw55]

Not exactly the case. See Law 72B1. Of course, proving intent may prove difficult.

Right. Which is why I favor rules that are neutral as to intent. I do recognize that this is not always possible or practical in bridge.

[barmar]

On the 4th spade, East would presumably discard his club, just like he did when he revoked. This would probably help any reasonably competent West find the correct defense.

 

Whether this would be enough for the novice is a good question.

[mycroft]

Remember (at least for the next while), that the ACBL is a "no weighted scores" territory. So, the separate requirements for each side apply, and this may be one of the situations where a split score is appropriate.

 

"For the offending side, the worst result that is at all possible" - it is clear that both West and East have pressure that is "at all possible" to mispitch on the run of the spades. So for E/W, 3NT=. You want to show off your skill? Quit revoking in critical situations, then.

 

"For the non-offending side, the best result that is likely" - now that's where skill applies. Normally I'm happy with "the skill level of someone who revokes is low enough to mispitch in a critical situation", but East knows she has 4 diamonds and a trick, provided partner has a trick. Having said *that*, if North has the ♥J, which he certainly could in this auction (I assume 1NT was 15-17), she is legitimately squeezed (for overtricks, but this is matchpoints) on the fifth spade. Does she pitch a diamond and concede the contract, or pitch a heart and potentially concede +2? Is she good enough to see the guard squeeze potential? Also, how likely is it that West will make a mistake as said by others?

 

Interesting questions.

[blackshoe]

Interesting indeed. Clearly it's not a simple 3NT down one for both sides.

[richlp]

[hv=pc=n&s=st3haq987d5ckq643&w=sj65hj2dq762cat87&n=sakq72h43da94cj92&e=s984hkt65dkjt83c5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1np2hp2np3cp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This is from the Monday afternoon November 2 afternoon Common Game. (http://www.thecommongame.com/Results/20151102Rank.html#tab_board_20)

 

You are called to the table and told East revoked at trick 6, pitching his singleton club.

 

Opening lead was a diamond to West's queen. Declarer ducked twice, won the third diamond, then cashed three top spades, with East's revoke occurring on the third spade.

 

Declarer switched to clubs at trick 7. West won the ace, returned a diamond, East cashed out diamonds and the spade 9 (which should have been played on the third spade). 6 tricks for the defense, 7 tricks for declarer, down 2 in 3NT.

 

The Law 64A2 penalty is a one trick transfer, resulting in down 1 instead of down 2. What does the Law 64C (equity) lead you to rule as a result if you are the Director if West is:

 

(a) a moderate Flight C player with a year of experience, or

 

(b) a low to average level Flight B player, or

 

(c ) a high level Flight B or low level Flight A player

 

Apparantly I'm not as up-to-date on the rules as I should be......From David Stevenson's page "All about Revokes"

 

"If the revoker (not his partner) won a later trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick then the penalty is two tricks."

 

Has this been changed????????????

[blackshoe]

It's only two tricks if the offending player won the revoke trick and his side wins a later trick.

 

I don't know when that article was written, but the current law dates back to 2007/2008. It was different before that, iirc.

[barmar]

I thought this was one of the laws that was changed in the 2007 Laws, but I just checked the 1997 Laws and it's the same (except for the way it's worded).

[Vampyr]

I thought this was one of the laws that was changed in the 2007 Laws, but I just checked the 1997 Laws and it's the same (except for the way it's worded).

 

What's changed is that it is no longer a two-trick penalty if you win a subsequent trick with a card you could legally have played to the revoke trick.

 

A retrograde step in my opinion. Actually, I would be happy with a two-trick penalty every time.

 

The lawmakers seem determined to make a lot of things like following suit and bidding sufficiently optional. It seems to me that these things are pretty basic and should be required.

[gordontd]

I thought this was one of the laws that was changed in the 2007 Laws, but I just checked the 1997 Laws and it's the same (except for the way it's worded).

No, it's significantly different.

 

2007

When a revoke is established:

1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending

player, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred

is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any

subsequent tricks won by the offending side.

2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the

offending player then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent

trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

1997

When a revoke is established:

1. Offending Player Won Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending

player, (penalty) after play ceases, the trick on which the revoke

occurred plus one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side

are transferred to the non-offending side.

2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending

player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick,

(penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending

side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending

player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick,

one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

 

The final bit was removed in 2007.

[pran]

What's changed is that it is no longer a two-trick penalty if you win a subsequent trick with a card you could legally have played to the revoke trick.

 

A retrograde step in my opinion. Actually, I would be happy with a two-trick penalty every time.

 

The lawmakers seem determined to make a lot of things like following suit and bidding sufficiently optional. It seems to me that these things are pretty basic and should be required.

It is a two trick penalty (subject to two penalty tricks being available) when the offender wins the revoke trick. The change in 2007 (as gordontd points out) is that the Director no longer needs to investigate whether the offender, while not winning the revoke trick, wins a later trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick.

 

This removed part of the laws was a very unfortunate rule, partly because it complicated revoke cases, partly because the offending side often could avoid the second trick penalty by careful play to the later tricks.

 

And don't forget Law 64C.

[Vampyr]

It is a two trick penalty (subject to two penalty tricks being available) when the offender wins the revoke trick. The change in 2007 (as gordontd points out) is that the Director no longer needs to investigate whether the offender, while not winning the revoke trick, wins a later trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick.

 

Gosh, I said it before Gordon. I suspected that changing my text colour to white might be a mistake.

[pran]

Gosh, I said it before Gordon. I suspected that changing my text colour to white might be a mistake.

Oh, I noticed your post too, but as you left out "It is a two trick penalty (subject to two penalty tricks being available) when the offender wins the revoke trick" I referred to Gordon instead. (No offence intended)

[Vampyr]

Oh, I noticed your post too, but as you left out "It is a two trick penalty (subject to two penalty tricks being available) when the offender wins the revoke trick" I referred to Gordon instead. (No offence intended)

 

This bit hadn't changed when the most recent Laws came out. So it was not really relevant to the comment that I replied to.

[campboy]

This removed part of the laws was a very unfortunate rule, partly because it complicated revoke cases, partly because the offending side often could avoid the second trick penalty by careful play to the later tricks.

 

And don't forget Law 64C.

I think the previous rule was better precisely because club TDs often do forget Law 64C. The vast majority of 64C cases in the current laws involve a defender winning a later trick with a card he shouldn't have (and conversely, most situations where this happens now require 64C).

[Vampyr]

I think the previous rule was better precisely because club TDs often do forget Law 64C. The vast majority of 64C cases in the current laws involve a defender winning a later trick with a card he shouldn't have (and conversely, most situations where this happens now require 64C).

 

And 64C is harder. The average volunteer playing director is not an expert player and may have no way to accurately determine "equity".

[pran]

I think the previous rule was better precisely because club TDs often do forget Law 64C. The vast majority of 64C cases in the current laws involve a defender winning a later trick with a card he shouldn't have (and conversely, most situations where this happens now require 64C).

The alleged fact that some directors forget laws is no excuse for adding an unnecessary and complicating law. This I believe is exactly why WBFLC removed that part of Law 64 just a few law generations after they had added it to the laws.

 

(If anything in the laws was consistently ignored by Directors it was the duty to look into the future after a revoke for the possibility that the offender would win a trick with a card he shouldn't have. And remember that it was the duty of the Director to inform the offending side of their possibility to avoid this second trick penalty by carefully letting the offender's partner rather than the offender win such a later trick.)

[lamford]

The alleged fact that some directors forget laws is no excuse for adding an unnecessary and complicating law. This I believe is exactly why WBFLC removed that part of Law 64 just a few law generations after they had added it to the laws.

 

(If anything in the laws was consistently ignored by Directors it was the duty to look into the future after a revoke for the possibility that the offender would win a trick with a card he shouldn't have. And remember that it was the duty of the Director to inform the offending side of their possibility to avoid this second trick penalty by carefully letting the offender's partner rather than the offender win such a later trick.)

While I agree that the TD should "explain all matters related to rectification" (wording from memory), I don't think that extends to giving tips on how to make the best of a bad job. You would not suggest to someone with a barred partner that their opening bid could well be the final contract, so they should open 3NT with a balanced 18-count.

[pran]

While I agree that the TD should "explain all matters related to rectification" (wording from memory), I don't think that extends to giving tips on how to make the best of a bad job. You would not suggest to someone with a barred partner that their opening bid could well be the final contract, so they should open 3NT with a balanced 18-count.

You (as Director) should not elaborate on the consequences of the Laws, like by suggesting certain lines of bidding or play.

 

But unless:

- you make it clear to a player, before he chooses how to call, that his partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction,

or

- you explain to both sides all the consequences of a(n established) revoke

without actually suggesting anything about how to call or play on,

you might easily find yourself having to face a Director's error ruling.

 

So yes, under the previous law 64 you must make the consequence of the offender winning a later trick with a card he should not have at the time perfectly clear to both sides, but then leave it to the players themselves figuring out how to use this information.

[lamford]

You (as Director) should not elaborate on the consequences of the Laws, like by suggesting certain lines of bidding or play.

 

But unless:

- you make it clear to a player, before he chooses how to call, that his partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction,

or

- you explain to both sides all the consequences of a(n established) revoke

without actually suggesting anything about how to call or play on,

you might easily find yourself having to face a Director's error ruling.

 

So yes, under the previous law 64 you must make the consequence of the offender winning a later trick with a card he should not have at the time perfectly clear to both sides, but then leave it to the players themselves figuring out how to use this information.

What you actually wrote was that the TD should inform a player "to avoid this second trick penalty by carefully letting the offender's partner rather than the offender win such a later trick." That was the part they should have to work out for themselves. At least under the old Laws.