Announcing revoke before end of play

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=st72h74dq2ckqjt62&w=s963hk92dakt75c53&n=skj54haq6dj3ca984&e=saq8hjt853d9864c7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Leads is a small heart, won by declarer with the ace over West's king.

Declarer plays ♣A and another club to dummy, on the second round West discards ♦5

Declarer now tries a low spade to the ♠J, East wins ♠Q

Now West asks if 2 rounds of clubs have been played, and someone (don't remember who) says yes, 2 rounds were played.

West turns out her last 2 cards and announces a revoke, showing ♣5 on the table. At this point Director is finally summoned.

 

Director instrucs West to put ♣5 on her hand (not on the third trick as it was being tried), and the play to continue. Director stays on the table to see the outcome.

East switches to ♥J, declarer wins ♥Q and desperate for a 9th trick tries a low spade, East wins ♠Ace, cashes his hearts and then comes back a diamond where West collects smore more tricks, when the smoke is cleared declarer is 3 down.

Director then transfers one trick to declarer's side resulting in 2 down, 7% for NS.

 

2 questions:

 

-Is ♣5 a penalty card?

-Should director had instructed declarer than 1 trick would transfer at the end of the deal to his side?

[blackshoe]

-Is ♣5 a penalty card?

-Should director had instructed declarer than 1 trick would transfer at the end of the deal to his side?

Not when the director instructs west to put it back in his hand.

Yes.

[pran]

[...]

Declarer plays ♣A and another club to dummy, on the second round West discards ♦5

Declarer now tries a low spade to the ♠J, East wins ♠Q

Now West asks if 2 rounds of clubs have been played, and someone (don't remember who) says yes, 2 rounds were played.

West turns out her last 2 cards and announces a revoke, showing ♣5 on the table. At this point Director is finally summoned.

 

Director instrucs West to put ♣5 on her hand (not on the third trick as it was being tried), and the play to continue. Director stays on the table to see the outcome.

East switches to ♥J, declarer wins ♥Q and desperate for a 9th trick tries a low spade, East wins ♠Ace, cashes his hearts and then comes back a diamond where West collects smore more tricks, when the smoke is cleared declarer is 3 down.

Director then transfers one trick to declarer's side resulting in 2 down, 7% for NS.

 

2 questions:

 

-Is ♣5 a penalty card?

-Should director had instructed declarer than 1 trick would transfer at the end of the deal to his side?

Yes, the ♣5 is a penalty card, it was been exposed by West in her act of announcing the revoke.

 

The important question is whether it is a minor or a major penalty card, I would rule major as the card was deliberately, not accidentally exposed.

 

I am perfectly aware of Law 50 which technically permits the Director to "rule otherwise", but in my opinion the situation here does not in any way justify "otherwise". (West could very well have called the Director and announced her revoke without exposing her second club, or she could have postponed her announcement till end of the play period without violating any law.)

 

When West eventually wins a trick in Diamonds she should be required to lead her penalty card for a total of 6 tricks to the defense. The standard revoke penalty of 1 trick applies for a final result of 1 down.

 

 

BUT!

I am really puzzled why Declarer didn't cash 8 tricks before going on a safari for the ninth trick?

And I am also puzzled why West, as the play went by, didn't win 4 tricks in diamonds holding declarer to 4 tricks?

[robert2734]

If we rule the 5 of clubs is a major penalty card and there is a lead penalty. Declarer can require east to lead a club. East doesn't have any so he can lead anything he wants and cashes all those red cards. Or declarer can forbid the lead of a club and the defenses cashes all their red winners. Or he can allow east to lead anything he wants and the club stays on the table as a penalty card. On the run of hearts the club gets discarded per force and now the defense cashes their diamonds.

 

There is a one trick penalty for winning a subsequent trick but not the trick on which he revoke. That appears to restore equity given declarer's line of play.

[Vampyr]

I am perfectly aware of Law 50 which technically permits the Director to "rule otherwise", but in my opinion the situation here does not in any way justify "otherwise". (West could very well have called the Director and announced her revoke without exposing her second club, or she could have postponed her announcement till end of the play period without violating any law.)

 

When West eventually wins a trick in Diamonds she should be required to lead her penalty card for a total of 6 tricks to the defense. The standard revoke penalty of 1 trick applies for a final result of 1 down.

 

 

This seems to raise an interesting issue. If the revoke had not been revealed until the play was finished, the declaring side would get one trick unless more were needed to restore equity. Perhaps equity should include the card that should have been being shown at the worst time for the defenders (or perhaps the trick following the revoke, since that is usually when such a card is revealed) and should be calculated as if that card had been a major penalty card.

[Fluffy]

Not when the director instructs west to put it back in his hand.

Yes.

 

So, if for some reason you forgot to tell declarer he would gain a trick due to revoke at the end, and you see declarer going many downs looking for a 9th trick, would you think it is your fault?

[Fluffy]

And I am also puzzled why West, as the play went by, didn't win 4 tricks in diamonds holding declarer to 4 tricks?

 

I got overall shape wrong, but EW didn't make their best discards for sure, in fact west had ♣5 at the end.

[pran]

If we rule the 5 of clubs is a major penalty card and there is a lead penalty. Declarer can require east to lead a club. East doesn't have any so he can lead anything he wants and cashes all those red cards. Or declarer can forbid the lead of a club and the defenses cashes all their red winners. Or he can allow east to lead anything he wants and the club stays on the table as a penalty card. On the run of hearts the club gets discarded per force and now the defense cashes their diamonds.

 

There is a one trick penalty for winning a subsequent trick but not the trick on which he revoke. That appears to restore equity given declarer's line of play.

Quite so.

I overlooked the fact that there is no way the ♣5 would still be there as a penalty card when West eventually got the lead.

[robert2734]

So, if for some reason you forgot to tell declarer he would gain a trick due to revoke at the end, and you see declarer going many downs looking for a 9th trick, would you think it is your fault?

 

As a director I don't think it is my duty to tell my peeps how to use the laws of bridge to their best advantage. If they happen to know the rules that's fine. I'm suppose to be neutral right? On this hand, once it is clear that the defender did not win the trick she revoked and did win a subsequent trick I'll tell them there's a one trick penalty so I can get back to my comfy chair. The rest of the play is of no interest to me.

 

When I make a ruling I tell them under what law is applicable. To help them with their appeal and to appear less capricious than applying the laws of bridge already makes me be.

[Fluffy]

Robert, the case here is that one director told me I could had appealed based on director making the mistake of not making it clear to declarer that he was entitled to 1 trick at the end. It seemed a bit off to me, but made some sense, that's why I am asking.

[VixTD]

Robert, the case here is that one director told me I could had appealed based on director making the mistake of not making it clear to declarer that he was entitled to 1 trick at the end. It seemed a bit off to me, but made some sense, that's why I am asking.

This is correct, the director should explain the laws that apply to the situation. In this case it includes any transfer of tricks.

 

If I have to rule on an established revoke I say something like: "Continue play from here. At the end of play two tricks won by the offending side from the revoke trick onwards will be transferred to the non-offending side, and if that doesn't sufficiently compensate the non-offenders a further adjustment may be necessary." If the revoke occurred several tricks earlier and I don't want to reveal what happened earlier in the play I might say: "Continue play from here. At the end of play, if the revoke trick was won with the revoke card, then two tricks ...... , if not then one trick ......"

 

Robert is right that the director should not be suggesting ways in which the non-offenders can best take advantage of the laws (I admit I do this for beginners playing against much better players), but the players are entitled to know what the laws say.

[blackshoe]

So, if for some reason you forgot to tell declarer he would gain a trick due to revoke at the end, and you see declarer going many downs looking for a 9th trick, would you think it is your fault?

I like VixTD's answer to this. B-)

[robert2734]

Fluffy always has the right to an appeal. I'm not here to defend his director. It isn't until we have an established revoke and the defenders have taken a subsequent trick that I know there's going to be a one trick penalty. At that point I'll announce to the table there's a one trick penalty and call me back if you have additional questions. I'm not here to help either side with their play.

 

Often quoting the rulebook conflicts with getting the truth out of people.

[barmar]

If we rule the 5 of clubs is a major penalty card and there is a lead penalty. Declarer can require east to lead a club. East doesn't have any so he can lead anything he wants and cashes all those red cards. Or declarer can forbid the lead of a club and the defenses cashes all their red winners. Or he can allow east to lead anything he wants and the club stays on the table as a penalty card. On the run of hearts the club gets discarded per force and now the defense cashes their diamonds.

Since declarer knows that East doesn't have a club, he would have to be irrational to choose one of the forbid/require options. Allowing East to lead what he wants leaves open the possibility that West won't be able to discard it before he gets the lead (or that they misdefend in such a way).

[mycroft]

Interesting. The Laws state that the TD will explain any *options* the NOS have, but this is not an option. The closest I can get to a requirement for the TD to explain the ramifications of the revoke is:

 

Law 81C2:

The Directors duties and powers normally include [...] advis[ing] the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

 

But I have always been taught to, and I believe it's right to, explain what's going to happen in circumstances like these. I know that others don't - for instance after an insufficient bid. I find it difficult when the NOS have to make a judgement (immediately, or as in this case, through the hand) without having full knowledge of the world on which that judgement is to be made.

 

I would be happy if "knowledge of the Laws and their interpretations is a valid skill, and beating the opponents through a more thorough knowledge of the Laws is a skill just like any other"; but that's not the way that Bridge has evolved. I wouldn't even mind a concept like M:tG's "Rules Enforcement Levels". But as it is, the players, by and large, don't know the Laws beyond the trivial, and that means it's the TDs job to ensure they know enough at the time to make the right decision.

 

Whether or not the player wants to (or does) listen.

 

As a side note, I really really wish players would stop showing (as opposed to playing) cards except to claim. It's almost *never* in their best interest.

[robert2734]

Advising the players they can cash out for down one or try to make their contract at risk of going down five isn't in my job description. Advising both the NOS and OS what's going to happen after an insufficient bid yes.

 

I wish testilying wasn't a valid skill. If you don't like the fact your opponents gain an advantage because of their more thorough knowledge of the Laws maybe try studying the laws yourself. I don't like the fact my opponents gain an advantage because they know how to execute a left shoehorn double squeeze.

[sanst]

I got overall shape wrong, but EW didn't make their best discards for sure, in fact west had ♣5 at the end.

Please, don't give non relevant and confusing infomation. Now everyone is wondering why the declarer didn't pick up his 8 tricks when he had the chance to do so.

Yes, the ♣5 is a MPC and yes, the TD should have told that there was an established revoke and that therefore after the play a trick would be transferred to the NOS, provided there was one to transfer. But If you want to appeal, you should get the facts straight and confirmed by at least the TD and preferably by the opps too.

[mycroft]

Advising the players they can cash out for down one or try to make their contract at risk of going down five isn't in my job description. Advising both the NOS and OS what's going to happen after an insufficient bid yes.

I have no idea what is going to happen on the board; I'm not looking at any cards but dummy's and the ♣5. I agree with you, it's not my job as TD to explain that 8+1=9, so if you have a play for 8 tricks you should take it; but I believe it *is* my job to ensure declarer knows that "a trick will be transferred at the end of the hand" should the opponents make one going forward. If declarer can't work out that that means 8+1=9, that's not my problem. And yes, several times I have seen it happen.

 

I may agree with you on the laws knowledge bit, too; but that's not the way Bridge is played. That may be unfortunate, but it's how it is.

[blackshoe]

I think I agree with Mycroft here. Even though tricks won't be transferred until after the play, and then only if the OS win one, the declarer should be told that now, while the director is at the table.

[inquiry]

"West ask if two round of clubs had been played"

 

Someone says "yes"

 

"West turns out two her last two cards" (I assume exposing to all the last two quitted tricks), and exposes the ♣5 from her hand.

 

Seems like a lot of violations there not covered yet. Wouldn't some number of procedural penalties be called for. West questions is not legal, the answer is a violation of the proprieties, turning over quitted tricks is a violation, and of course exposing the club five is a violation.

 

I agree the director should have mentioned the one trick (only) penalty and that the ruling could be appealed, but I would not like to appeal if my side answered the question about was two rounds of clubs being played. But if declarer volunteered that, perhaps there no penalty, but if West was looking at East when asking, I am sure she would have gotten an indication even if the question was not answered out-loud at the table.

 

 

 

[weejonnie]

"West ask if two round of clubs had been played"

 

Someone says "yes"

 

"West turns out two her last two cards" (I assume exposing to all the last two quitted tricks), and exposes the ♣5 from her hand.

 

Seems like a lot of violations there not covered yet. Wouldn't some number of procedural penalties be called for. West questions is not legal, the answer is a violation of the proprieties, turning over quitted tricks is a violation, and of course exposing the club five is a violation.

 

I agree the director should have mentioned the one trick (only) penalty and that the ruling could be appealed, but I would not like to appeal if my side answered the question about was two rounds of clubs being played. But if declarer volunteered that, perhaps there no penalty, but if West was looking at East when asking, I am sure she would have gotten an indication even if the question was not answered out-loud at the table.

 

Regrettably lots of problems arise (and people take advantage of) the innate tendency of bridge players to be helpful.

 

Bridge developed from Whist - immortalised in "the Lambton Worm" song: "Whisht lads and shut yer gobs" ie. keep quiet.

[Vampyr]

Regrettably lots of problems arise (and people take advantage of) the innate tendency of bridge players to be helpful.

 

Bridge developed from Whist - immortalised in "the Lambton Worm" song: "Whisht lads and shut yer gobs" ie. keep quiet.

 

You believe that it is better, then, to wait until the end of the hand to reveal you have revoked, when the penalty might be lighter (ie no MPC)?

[barmar]

You believe that it is better, then, to wait until the end of the hand to reveal you have revoked, when the penalty might be lighter (ie no MPC)?

You're not required to reveal that you've revoked at all. The offending side is not required to call attention to its own irregularities.

 

If you can reveal that you've revoked before it becomes established, most people will do so, because the MPC often doesn't change the result, but the revoke penalty usually does (unless the OS never takes any more tricks, in which case it's a wash). Keeping silent only helps if the opponents never notice.

[blackshoe]

You're not required to reveal that you've revoked at all. The offending side is not required to call attention to its own irregularities.

 

If you can reveal that you've revoked before it becomes established, most people will do so, because the MPC often doesn't change the result, but the revoke penalty usually does (unless the OS never takes any more tricks, in which case it's a wash). Keeping silent only helps if the opponents never notice.

If you discover that you've revoked before the revoke is established you must reveal that fact because you must correct the revoke. Law 62A. If you do not reveal it, )you might claim you don't have to per Law 9A4), but you will have violated a "must" law, so you should get a PP (you probably won't, but that's another issue).

[barmar]

If you discover that you've revoked before the revoke is established you must reveal that fact because you must correct the revoke. Law 62A. If you do not reveal it, )you might claim you don't have to per Law 9A4), but you will have violated a "must" law, so you should get a PP (you probably won't, but that's another issue).

Forgot about that. As you say, you probably won't get a PP, because it will be very hard (practically impossible) for the TD to determine that you discovered the revoke. He could ask, and you should answer truthfully, but I can't really imagine a TD doing that in practice.