What constitutes Drawing Attention to a Revoke?

[Lanor Fow]

A revoke is not following suit when one can. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit. Attention has not been drawn to the fact that declarer could have followed suit. As such attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke. Drawing attention to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit is necessary, but not sufficient, to draw attention to the revoke

[PeterAlan]

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

No. The act of saying "Having none, partner?" of itself draws attention to the play in question (especially when it elicits a response). Bear in mind that it is only to the advantage of the non-offending side (if in fact there has been a revoke) that such attention has been drawn. We do not want to compound the issue further by allowing the offending side to suggest that, despite this exchange, the state of their opponents' mind is such that attention has somehow nevertheless not been so drawn.

 

But that wasn't what I was alluding to, which was simply that such an act draws attention to the revoke notwithstanding that the players may be unaware at the time that a revoke has in fact taken place.

[PeterAlan]

A revoke is not following suit when one can. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit. Attention has not been drawn to the fact that declarer could have followed suit. As such attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke. Drawing attention to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit is necessary, but not sufficient, to draw attention to the revoke

Please see discussion above where this has already been addressed. In brief, declarer's action in not following suit when he should is what constitutes a revoke (see Law 61A) - nothing more is required, so it is both necessary and sufficient. Attention may not be being drawn to the fact that a revoke has taken place, but that's not the same thing as a revoke itself.

[blackshoe]

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.

Dummy has, as you say, exceeded his authority under Laws 42 and 43. So he gets a PP (Law 43B1) for violation of Law 43A1{c}. In addition, dummy may no longer warn declarer not to lead from the wrong hand (Law 43B2{a}) or ask declarer if he has revoked (Law 43B2{b}). The revoke has not been established (Law 63A), so must be corrected (Law 62A). The revoke card is returned to declarer's hand (Law 62B2). Law 43B2{b} does not apply to this card. There is no further rectification.

 

What would have happened in the next few seconds if dummy had kept his mouth shut after his first (legal) question is not relevant.

[PeterAlan]

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.

It was an incident of this sort that caused me to generate the OP, which is derived from it. What happened was that declarer revoked at trick 2 by ruffing (a club with a heart trump) and when asked by dummy said that she had no clubs when in fact she still held one. She then played on. This was the second board of a 3-board round, and the defenders only recognised that they had been misled when they discussed the hand after playing the third board. Yes, they could have realised at the end of the second hand if they had been fully on the ball, but it had ended with declarer claiming by saying "I have only trumps left"; the defenders hadn't counted declarer's trumps sufficiently accurately to realise that she must still have held one plain card, and accepted the claim.

 

The question is then how the TD adjusts the result. If attention has been drawn to the revoke by the question and answer, then neither 64B4 nor 64B5 apply, and rectification is under 64A; otherwise (the defenders have called to the third board) it is under 64C.

 

Hence my earlier remark, which you appear to be echoing: "This is where the problem lies - the defenders may well not [call the TD], because they do not realise that there has nevertheless actually been a revoke."

 

For completeness, I'll note that the scenarios of the OP of course apply mutatis mutandis to revokes / enquiries by a defending side.

[blackshoe]

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.

Perhaps the answer isn't as obvious as you think it is.

 

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.

What "point later on"? Later on, someone may call the director and ask her to determine whether there was a revoke on this trick. Or not. If no one calls, the whole question is moot. If someone calls, the director will be dealing with an established revoke. I suppose the whole point of this exercise now is that you want to give a PP to dummy for "calling attention to a revoke" when all he did was exercise his right to ask declarer if he has a card of the suit that was led. Or is there something else? NB: if dummy persists in his questioning, we have a different situation. See my answer to Agua upthread.

[blackshoe]

But that wasn't what I was alluding to, which was simply that such an act draws attention to the revoke notwithstanding that the players may be unaware at the time that a revoke has in fact taken place.

But only if the revoke actually happened. If there was no revoke... I am reminded of Schrodinger's cat.

[aguahombre]

What would have happened in the next few seconds if dummy had kept his mouth shut after his first (legal) question is not relevant.

Perhaps that is written somewhere as being not relevant. But isn't "equity" the act of restoring what would have happened if the unlawful participation by Dummy had not occurred? I wonder if the SB could successfully explain how a 2-trick penalty was imminent and had become "equity".

 

Maybe that is warped, but Paul would probably be amused.

[PeterAlan]

What "point later on"? Later on, someone may call the director and ask her to determine whether there was a revoke on this trick. Or not. If no one calls, the whole question is moot. If someone calls, the director will be dealing with an established revoke. I suppose the whole point of this exercise now is that you want to give a PP to dummy for "calling attention to a revoke" when all he did was exercise his right to ask declarer if he has a card of the suit that was led. Or is there something else? NB: if dummy persists in his questioning, we have a different situation. See my answer to Agua upthread.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the expression "in point". It just means "relevant". Yes, if someone calls, the director will be dealing with an established revoke: the question then is how rectification is determined, and that depends on whether or not attention has been drawn to the revoke.

 

That is all I am concerned with; I have no interest in PPs or any such complication here, and I am avoiding being drawn into commenting on aguahombre's variant scenario.

[PeterAlan]

But only if the revoke actually happened. If there was no revoke... I am reminded of Schrodinger's cat.

Indeed. But if there was no revoke, there's no issue anyway. We're only concerned with the case where there was.

[Lanor Fow]

Please see discussion above where this has already been addressed. In brief, declarer's action in not following suit when he should is what constitutes a revoke (see Law 61A) - nothing more is required, so it is both necessary and sufficient. Attention may not be being drawn to the fact that a revoke has taken place, but that's not the same thing as a revoke itself.

 

 

I've bolded the pertinent part. Noone has drawn attention to the 'when he should' part, just the not followed suit part. Therefore attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke

[PeterAlan]

Perhaps the answer [to the question "Why should the answer to "did he [dummy] draw attention to the revoke?" be "yes" if he [declarer] did [revoke] and "no" if he didn't?"] isn't as obvious as you think it is.

I think that the answers you gave within the question are correct: "No" (not applicable; there's no issue) if he didn't revoke; "Yes" if he did. As to why, there's no need to elaborate on the "No", and I've already set out why I think that the answer to the other case is "Yes" rather than being "No" as well.

[PeterAlan]

I've bolded the pertinent part. Noone has drawn attention to the 'when he should' part, just the not followed suit part. Therefore attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke

It isn't pertinent at all. The question of whether he should have followed suit at the time of the putative revoke is a matter of fact that can be settled at any time, and does not in any way depend on whether attention has been drawn to it. It simply comes down to whether or not he had a card of the suit in question.

 

A revoke is no more than the act of failing to follow suit. You seem to be confusing it with the combination of that act and the recognition of it.

[blackshoe]

the question then is how rectification is determined, and that depends on whether or not attention has been drawn to the revoke.

How so?

[PeterAlan]

How so?

Take the case of the actual incident I mentioned. The defenders did not recognise that there had been a revoke until after they had called to the next board. If attention has already been drawn to the revoke by dummy's question, then Laws 64B4 & 5 do not apply, and rectification is 2 tricks under Law 64A1. If not, then rectification is under Law 64C, in this case 1 trick.

 

Law 61B2(a) does not impose any time restriction on dummy asking declarer, who may already have established the revoke. In your world, we then have the situation that an inaccurate answer by declarer (as happened here) may give rise to an advantage - if it's not recognised in time - that an accurate answer does not.

[Zelandakh]

It isn't pertinent at all.

Peter, you keep writing stuff like this and it does not make it any the more true. You asked a question. It has been answered fully. You can keep telling everyone they are wrong as much as you like but they are not wrong, you are. Noone has drawn attanetion to the revoke, any more than asking the meaning of the auction after an insufficient bid draws attention to that. Attention has been drawn to the bid but not that it is insufficient; similarly here attantion has been drawn to the discard but not that it was a revoke. You can go through the law book and find plenty of examples of this type. It goes back to the fruit-bananas analogy but in plain language, your interpretation is wrong. You do not have to like it, just do not expect to get rulings based on your idea and please (PLEASE!) do not make rulings using this approach!

[barmar]

It isn't pertinent at all. The question of whether he should have followed suit at the time of the putative revoke is a matter of fact that can be settled at any time, and does not in any way depend on whether attention has been drawn to it. It simply comes down to whether or not he had a card of the suit in question.

 

A revoke is no more than the act of failing to follow suit. You seem to be confusing it with the combination of that act and the recognition of it.

But the issue isn't whether declarer did in fact revoke -- it's clear (after the fact) that he did. The issue is whether asking "No spades?" draws attention to the revoke.

 

Drawing attention to an irregularity means that you do something that causes the other players realize that the irregularity has occurred. But if dummy asks "No spades?" and declarer says "No", no one realizes that the irregularity has occurred. So attention has not been drawn to it.

 

Put another way: The question draws attention to the fact that declarer didn't follow suit, but it doesn't draw attention to the fact that he could have followed suit. So it hasn't drawn attention to both aspects of the definition of a revoke.

[campboy]

No. The act of saying "Having none, partner?" of itself draws attention to the play in question (especially when it elicits a response). Bear in mind that it is only to the advantage of the non-offending side (if in fact there has been a revoke) that such attention has been drawn. We do not want to compound the issue further by allowing the offending side to suggest that, despite this exchange, the state of their opponents' mind is such that attention has somehow nevertheless not been so drawn.

No-one is suggesting that the OS get to say whether their opponents' attention has been drawn to the irregularity. If one of the NOS says that his attention has been drawn to the revoke, then it has. But if even NOS themselves don't think their attention has been drawn to a revoke, then it hasn't been.

 

As others have pointed out, "having none, partner?" can't draw attention to the revoke, because if it did dummy wouldn't be allowed to say it.

[blackshoe]

So? What is the legal remedy for this advantage?

[pran]

When Dummy asks Declarer who failed to follow suit if he is void in that suit then there are two possibilities:

 

Declarer answers "no" and corrects his unestablished revoke.

Or:

Declarer answers "yes" in which case Dummy's question is void (considered never asked).

 

If later during (or after) the play it is discovered that Declarer indeed committed a revoke this is handled in the regular way just as if Dummy never said anything in this connection.

 

Dummy's question is legal and not any source for UI, nor is it considered drawing attention to anything but the fact that Declarer failed to follow suit.

 

Attention to the revoke is drawn by Declarer if and when he confirms that he in fact has revoked or by any player who at any time discovers that a revoke has indeed occurred and draws attention to this fact.

[barmar]

So? What is the legal remedy for this advantage?

Players should pay more attention to protect themselves. Eventually it should come to light that declarer has a card he could have played to the revoke trick. The TD should be called then, and he'll apply the rectification for an established revoke.

 

If an opponent revokes and you never notice, they win. "No spades, partner?" doesn't change that.

 

The purpose if allowing this question is clearly not for the benefits of the opponents, it's for the benefit of the revoking side -- it makes it less likely that the revoke will become established, which engenders a higher penalty, assuming attention is then drawn to the established revoke. Since the offending side is not required to draw attention to their own infractions, it's up to the opponents to notice this to get their advantage back.

[axman]

Players should pay more attention to protect themselves. Eventually it should come to light that declarer has a card he could have played to the revoke trick. The TD should be called then, and he'll apply the rectification for an established revoke.

 

If an opponent revokes and you never notice, they win. "No spades, partner?" doesn't change that.

 

The purpose if allowing this question is clearly not for the benefits of the opponents, it's for the benefit of the revoking side -- it makes it less likely that the revoke will become established, which engenders a higher penalty, assuming attention is then drawn to the established revoke. Since the offending side is not required to draw attention to their own infractions, it's up to the opponents to notice this to get their advantage back.

 

I do not concur that benefit from the questioning the revoker lands solely upon the revoking side.

 

The predicate for mandatory correction (distinct from voluntary correction) of an unestablished revoke is the acknowledgment that the ueRevoke exists. The inquiry is the prelude to forcing the acknowledgment. Here is an occasion when it is to the benefit of the non revoking side:

 

Consider a contract of 6N where declarer has 15 tricks except that the defense has 7 spades if taken off the top. The SA being led where RHO discards a diamond. Here, it is to revoker's advantage to not acknowledge his revoke even if the inquiry is made; why? Because correction means a PC which creates a lead penalty against LHO- and voila! Declarer makes 6 instead of down five (six less the one trick penalty).

[aguahombre]

 

Consider a contract of 6N where declarer has 15 tricks except that the defense has 7 spades if taken off the top. The SA being led where RHO discards a diamond. Here, it is to revoker's advantage to not acknowledge his revoke even if the inquiry is made; why? Because correction means a PC which creates a lead penalty against LHO- and voila! Declarer makes 6 instead of down five (six less the one trick penalty).

What one trick penalty?

[axman]

What one trick penalty?

 

If the revoke is not corrected in time <sic> it becomes established- ostensibly subject to a 1 trick penalty.

[weejonnie]

If the revoke is not corrected in time <sic> it becomes established- ostensibly subject to a 1 trick penalty.

In this case, if called - I would restore equity as per 64C. Under the circumstances (unless declarer was the Rueful Rabbit), I might also apply 72B1 - and issue a PP.

 

C. Director Responsible for Equity

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

 

72B1

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.