What constitutes Drawing Attention to a Revoke?

[PeterAlan]

Scenario 1: Declarer's LHO leads a plain card to a trick, which declarer ruffs in hand. Dummy enquires "having no Xs, partner?" and declarer says "Oh, I see I do." Do we all agree that attention has been drawn to the revoke? Of course, it is not established unless declarer has already played to the next trick, claimed, etc.

 

Scenario 2: Declarer's LHO leads a plain card to a trick, which declarer ruffs in hand. Dummy enquires "having no Xs, partner?" and declarer, holding at least one X, wrongly says "No, I don't" and plays on. Do we all still agree that attention has been drawn to the revoke? If not, why not?

 

Suppose now that in Scenario 2 the fact of the revoke does not become clear until after the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal or until after the round has ended (see Laws 64B 4 & 5). As long as the scoring correction period has not ended Law 64C remains applicable, but do we agree, or not, that rectification under Law 64A still applies?

[nige1]

The revoke law is namby-pamby.

 

A player can be strongly tempted to revoke, when he will get a terrible score unless he makes his contract, and there is no other way to make it, especially if he's in contention and opponents have lost interest.

 

The rules make no attempt to explain how you "call attention" to an infraction, in marginal cases.

 

As usual the rules seem complex and unclear but perhaps the director can justify a draconian ruling against the revoker because it's illegal to conceal a revoke, deliberately.

[PeterAlan]

...

 

As usual the rules seem complex and unclear but perhaps the director can justify a draconian ruling against the revoker because it's illegal to conceal a revoke, deliberately.

I'm trying to keep the situation as straightforward as possible - we needn't impute nefarious motives to the declarer, who could simply be mistaken (concealed card, dropped card, etc).

[BillHiggin]

Scenario 1: Declarer's LHO leads a plain card to a trick, which declarer ruffs in hand. Dummy enquires "having no Xs, partner?" and declarer says "Oh, I see I do." Do we all agree that attention has been drawn to the revoke? Of course, it is not established unless declarer has already played to the next trick, claimed, etc.

The question by dummy did not call attention to the revoke - the answer "Oh, I see I do" did!

 

Scenario 2: Declarer's LHO leads a plain card to a trick, which declarer ruffs in hand. Dummy enquires "having no Xs, partner?" and declarer, holding at least one X, wrongly says "No, I don't" and plays on. Do we all still agree that attention has been drawn to the revoke? If not, why not?

The question by dummy did not call attention to the revoke - nor did the answer. Attention to the revoke has not happened (yet).

 

 

Suppose now that in Scenario 2 the fact of the revoke does not become clear until after the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal or until after the round has ended (see Laws 64B 4 & 5). As long as the scoring correction period has not ended Law 64C remains applicable, but do we agree, or not, that rectification under Law 64A still applies?

 

I will not pretend to answer this.

[PeterAlan]

Scenario 1: Declarer's LHO leads a plain card to a trick, which declarer ruffs in hand. Dummy enquires "having no Xs, partner?" and declarer says "Oh, I see I do." Do we all agree that attention has been drawn to the revoke? Of course, it is not established unless declarer has already played to the next trick, claimed, etc.

The question by dummy did not call attention to the revoke - the answer "Oh, I see I do" did!

 

Scenario 2: Declarer's LHO leads a plain card to a trick, which declarer ruffs in hand. Dummy enquires "having no Xs, partner?" and declarer, holding at least one X, wrongly says "No, I don't" and plays on. Do we all still agree that attention has been drawn to the revoke? If not, why not?

The question by dummy did not call attention to the revoke - nor did the answer. Attention to the revoke has not happened (yet).

I'm struggling to see why the accuracy (I'm avoiding "truthfulness") of the declarer's answer should determine the result of the question posed (ie has attention been drawn to the revoke), especially when the inaccurate answer may result in a more favourable outcome for declarer than the accurate one. In both scenarios it is a fact that there has been a revoke. In both dummy has asked about it. Why is it the accuracy of declarer's answer that determines whether or not attention has been drawn to the same actual event?

[blackshoe]

What is correct procedure in these cases?

 

1. Dummy's question is correct procedure (Law 42B1, Law 61B2{a}). When declarer answers affirmatively, attention has been drawn to an irregularity (by declarer) (Law 9A2), and Law 9B1 applies — the director should be called at once. The revoke has not been established; Law 62 will be applied. In general, the revoke card is withdrawn and put back in declarer's hand, and declarer substitutes a card of the correct suit (Laws 62A, 62B2) and the defenders may withdraw cards played after the revoke and before attention was drawn, placing such cards back in their hands (Law 62C). Knowledge of such cards is AI to both defenders, UI to declarer (Law 16D). Law 64C does not apply.

 

2. Dummy's question is correct procedure (Law 42B1, Law 61B2{a}). When declarer answers negatively, no attention has been drawn to an irregularity, so Law 9 does not apply. Nor does Law 62. If the revoke is later established (see Law 63), the director, when called, will apply Law 64, including 64C if that's applicable. One or two tricks will be transferred, and the score adjusted if the transfer does not restore equity. If Law 64B4 or 5 applies, then Law 64A does not, and 64C is the sole source of rectification.

 

Dummy's question establishes a potential, it does not establish a fact.

 

A defender (or declarer, but that's moot in this scenario) might call the director after dummy's question and declarer's negative answer. There is no prohibition against the call. The timing of such a call (at the time of the question or after the play) is irrelevant legally.

[PeterAlan]

When declarer answers negatively, no attention has been drawn to an irregularity ...

This is the crux of the issue. I am less confident of the answer than you.

 

Dummy's question establishes a potential, it does not establish a fact.

True, but in both scenarios the fact of the revoke is nevertheless there, so one might well regard it (the fact, not the revoke) as established (except in the sense of verified, which is presumably what you mean). Declarer's denial of it in scenario 2 doesn't make it any less real.

 

A defender ... might call the director after dummy's question and declarer's negative answer.

This is where the problem lies - the defenders may well not do so, because they do not realise that there has nevertheless actually been a revoke.

[pran]

A defender (or declarer, but that's moot in this scenario) might call the director after dummy's question and declarer's negative answer. There is no prohibition against the call. The timing of such a call (at the time of the question or after the play) is irrelevant legally.

This is where the problem lies - the defenders may well not do so, because they do not realise that there has nevertheless actually been a revoke.

Any player (Dummy only after attention has been drawn to an irregularity) may at any time call the Director, possibly for a reason (or reasons) known only to himself. He may give his reason(s) for the call to the Director, if he prefers in private without the other players being informed on what he says to the Director.

 

From thereon the situation is completely under the Director's control.

[PeterAlan]

Any player (Dummy only after attention has been drawn to an irregularity) may at any time call the Director, possibly for a reason (or reasons) known only to himself. He may give his reason(s) for the call to the Director, if he prefers in private without the other players being informed on what he says to the Director.

 

From thereon the situation is completely under the Director's control.

True, but this doesn't help us with the answer to the original question.

[campboy]

I agree with Bill and Ed. This is not a complicated issue. If someone's attention had been drawn to the irregularity, they would know that it had occurred. No-one does. (If you think attention has been drawn, whose attention is it?)

[axman]

This is the crux of the issue. I am less confident of the answer than you.

 

 

True, but in both scenarios the fact of the revoke is nevertheless there, so one might well regard it (the fact, not the revoke) as established (except in the sense of verified, which is presumably what you mean). Declarer's denial of it in scenario 2 doesn't make it any less real.

 

 

This is where the problem lies - the defenders may well not do so, because they do not realise that there has nevertheless actually been a revoke.

 

44A gives a definition of revoke. If the condition is met, the revoke occurred. If attention is drawn to the condition but the revoke was not contemporaneously acknowledged, the failure to acknowledge is not a predicate for deeming that attention was not so drawn.

 

Under the conditions given: if the TD establishes within the correction period that the subject revoke occurred, it is subject to the trick transfer penalty in addition to any other relevant remedy- just as if it were prior to agreeing the score.

[blackshoe]

This is where the problem lies - the defenders may well not do so, because they do not realise that there has nevertheless actually been a revoke.

So? If dummy had not asked the question, the defenders might also not realize there really was a revoke.

 

Declarer has muddied the waters by saying, incorrectly, that he did not revoke. In the first instance, when a player says something like this, we (the players at the table, at least) should believe him unless our count of the hand indicates that he is probably mistaken. But if we don't have that indication, there's nothing to be done. Otherwise, we end up with players calling the director any time someone doesn't follow suit. We don't have enough directors for that. B-)

[barmar]

Dummy's question draws attention to the possibility of a revoke, it doesn't draw attention to the fact that a revoke actually occurred. No rectification is needed or available for a potential revoke, only for an actual revoke.

 

It's usually to your advantage for an opponent's revoke to be revealed after it has been established, since there's an automatic 1 or 2 trick penalty. So scenario 2 is only a win for declarer if the defenders never realize that he revoked and answered incorrectly. That's a pretty big gamble, although if it's the only way to make the contract I suppose some might try it. But if the TD is somehow able to discern this, you'd be guilty of violating the law that says you're not allowed to commit an irregularity intentionally, so you'd be subject to both the normal revoke penalty and also a procedural penalty.

 

But since it's really hard to determine the intentionality of the revoke (compare this to the difficulty in proving illicit communication between partners when we have video evidence), that second law doesn't have much teeth, either.

[blackshoe]

It is often said that the laws attempt to ensure that the director does not have to determine a player's intent, and yet the laws refer in several places to that very thing. I think that directors are in those cases required to determine the player's intent as best they can, difficult though that may be. As for teeth, the law certainly does have teeth. You just need a director with the guts to say "the preponderance of the evidence tells me that you may well have done this intentionally, and the law says you must not do that, so I'm giving you a procedural penalty". You will then get protestations of innocence, of course, but like most self-serving statements, they should be discounted. Provided, of course, that you actually have investigated ("Why did you say you had no more spades when you actually had some?") You may judge that it wasn't intentional, you may judge that it was. In the latter case, a PP is definitely appropriate ('must' is the strongest word, so violation is 'a serious matter indeed'.)

[PeterAlan]

I agree with Bill and Ed. This is not a complicated issue. If someone's attention had been drawn to the irregularity, they would know that it had occurred. No-one does. (If you think attention has been drawn, whose attention is it?)

LAW 61A. Definition of Revoke

Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke.

Everyone's attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer has shown out of Xs. That action is a revoke (see Law 61A), and attention has been drawn to it. The four players may not be aware at the time that it is a revoke, but it's a revoke nevertheless, and always was, regardless of when this fact comes to light (if it does). It doesn't stop being a revoke just because that isn't known to the players at the table at the time (many revokes are not immediately picked up).

 

Put a different way, attention has been drawn to the revoke; what has not been drawn to everyone's attention is that it is a revoke; that doesn't change the fact that it is one and remains so. What you seem to be suggesting is that a revoke is not a revoke until someone notices it. I beg to differ.

[blackshoe]

Everyone's attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer has shown out of Xs. That action is a revoke (see Law 61A), and attention has been drawn to it. The four players may not be aware at the time that it is a revoke, but it's a revoke nevertheless, and always was, regardless of when this fact comes to light (if it does). It doesn't stop being a revoke just because that isn't known to the players at the table at the time (many revokes are not immediately picked up).

 

Put a different way, attention has been drawn to the revoke; what has not been drawn to everyone's attention is that it is a revoke; that doesn't change the fact that it is one and remains so. What you seem to be suggesting is that a revoke is not a revoke until someone notices it. I beg to differ.

No. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer did not follow suit. He doesn't have to follow suit if he doesn't have any. He says he doesn't have any. The available evidence, then, indicates that no revoke has occurred. That the evidence is wrong is not relevant.

 

I would disagree too with "a revoke is not a revoke until someone notices it" but that's not what's being said.

[PeterAlan]

No. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer did not follow suit. He doesn't have to follow suit if he doesn't have any. He says he doesn't have any. The available evidence, then, indicates that no revoke has occurred. That the evidence is wrong is not relevant.

I disagree. The evidence available at the time may not indicate that there has been a revoke, but that is what is irrelevant. What is relevant is that in fact there has been one and, I stress, it is the action of failing to follow suit that constitutes a revoke (Law 61A), and it is that action that has been drawn to everyone's attention. Are you denying that declarer's action in failing to follow suit is, in fact, a revoke?

[wank]

I disagree. The evidence available at the time may not indicate that there has been a revoke, but that is what is irrelevant. What is relevant is that in fact there has been one and, I stress, it is the action of failing to follow suit that constitutes a revoke (Law 61A), and it is that action that has been drawn to everyone's attention. Are you denying that declarer's action in failing to follow suit is, in fact, a revoke?

 

dummy isn't drawing attention to a revoke. dummy is drawing attention to declarer not following suit.

 

all bananas are fruit, but not all fruits are bananas. declarer is effectively pointing out that declarer's played a fruit. he's not pointing out that declarer played a banana, though it might on further investigation prove to be one.

[PeterAlan]

dummy isn't drawing attention to a revoke. dummy is drawing attention to declarer not following suit.

See Law 61A above - "Failure to follow suit [when you should] constitutes a revoke." The failure to follow suit is the revoke in these circumstances, and any argument that attention is being drawn to one but not the other is, in my view, sophistry. Yes, attention is being drawn to the failure to follow suit, but if that failure "constitutes" a revoke then attention is being drawn to the revoke as well. Both are the same action - a revoke is not a state of awareness, it is the action of failing to follow suit when you should, and attention has been drawn to that action.

 

A banana doesn't cease to be a banana just because someone describes it as a fruit. "I draw your attention to a piece of fruit." Is the piece of fruit in question a banana? Yes. Then attention was drawn to a banana, whether or not its banana-ness was spelled out at the time. The attention relates to the object, not to how it may have been described. In our case, the focus is on the action of playing a card. The question may be a general one, but it relates to a specific action, and it is to that one action that attention is being drawn. If that action is a revoke (banana), as well as a failure to follow suit (fruit), then attention has been drawn to a revoke (banana).

[blackshoe]

Are you denying that declarer's action in failing to follow suit is, in fact, a revoke?

I did say "that the evidence [that there was not a revoke] is wrong" in my last post, so no, I don't deny there was a revoke. I'm saying that attention has not been drawn to it.

[PeterAlan]

I don't deny there was a revoke. I'm saying that attention has not been drawn to it.

It seems to me that you are treating the words "attention drawn to the revoke" as though they say or mean "attention drawn to fact that a revoke has taken place", whereas I'm not doing so.

 

You may say that I'm taking a rather literal reading of the laws in advancing this view - I might even agree. But I think that we ought to start with what the laws actually say. And in this instance your interpretation arguably might disadvantage a non-offending side.

[blackshoe]

What was the irregularity? The revoke, yes? Does the question "having no spades?" draw attention to a revoke? What if the player didn't revoke? What if he did? Why should the answer to "did he draw attention to the revoke?" be "yes" if he did and "no" if he didn't? And once those questions are answered, what if he says "I have no spades"? If he's right, there's been no revoke, so attention could hardly have been drawn to one.

 

Let me ask you. Dummy ask declarer if he has any spades. Declarer says no. Are you going to call the director if you're dummy? A defender? Declarer? I submit that none of the players at the table should call the director unless either a defender is reasonably sure declarer did in fact revoke, or declarer later realizes he was mistaken, and he did revoke. In the latter case, if the revoke has not been established, he should correct it immediately, and if it has been established, he might as well wait until after the play, since nothing can really be done about it until then anyway. Though I suppose one might argue that the information that declarer has revoked might prove useful to the defense, so he should call right away. Not sure the law says that, though.

[aguahombre]

O.K., let's stick with the big "he" in question here.. Dummy.

 

Declarer, 4th to play, ruffs trick one.

"No Spades, Partner?" -- Part of Dummy's allowed things to do. It is too late to prevent the irregularity, but not too late to prevent the revoke from being established for a 2-trick penalty.

 

Declarer, has a Spade, but says, "No".

Dummy knows, because of the auction, that Declarer has a Spade. He asks Declarer to check again, and Declarer finds the Spade.

 

Dummy, IMO, has crossed the line and violated his charge -- not to be the one who draws attention to the irregularity (which he knew had occurred). I don't see anything in writing which allows the TD to treat the revoke as "established"; but I sure believe that but for Dummy's violation it would have become established in the next few seconds.

 

Ruling, please.

[PeterAlan]

Does the question "having no spades?" draw attention to a revoke? What if the player didn't revoke? What if he did? Why should the answer to "did he draw attention to the revoke?" be "yes" if he did and "no" if he didn't?

Isn't the answer to your last question obvious?

 

In the first case there was a revoke, and attention was drawn to it. In the second, there was no revoke to draw attention to, just as you go on to illustrate in the rest of your paragraph. What's the problem with that? You highlight the issue exactly - you just seem unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

 

Your second paragraph indicates, I think, where the confusion lies. You're still concerned with what was known by the players at the time, and I'm not. We do not need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture in order to settle the objective test of "was attention drawn to the revoke?", which can be done in exactly the way you set out in your first paragraph. We do not need to know the answer to this at the time, only when it becomes in point later on.

[campboy]

We do not need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture in order to settle the objective test of "was attention drawn to the revoke?"

You obviously do need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture, because "attention" is a state of mind.