Declarer pulled wrong card/revoke/claim

[TylerE]

So here's the situation.

 

N is declaring in a NT contract.

 

with 4 tricks to go W is on lead and leads the T♥.

 

Dummy's last 4 cards are JT♦ (Good), and Kx♣ (not good).

East's holdings/plays are irrelevant.

Declarer holds the J♥ (boss), a small ♦, and Jx♣.

 

 

Declarer pitches a ♣ from dummy, and *thinks* he wins the trick with the J♥, but actually plays the J♣, then tables a ♦ claiming 2 of the last 3, conceding a ♣.

 

W leads another ♥ as the claim statement is being made, and the director is now called to figure out WTF to do.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdjtck2&w=shdc&n=shjd2cj3&e=sht2dcaq]399|300[/hv]

[blackshoe]

Declarer has claimed. Play ceases. Ignore the ♥ lead from West for the moment. As it was not South's turn, his line of play statement is completely invalid. In addition, he has revoked (Law 61A), and the revoke is established by the claim (Law 63A3). The revoke may not be corrected (Law 63D). Now we adjudicate the claim. West will be deemed to lead his heart (after all, that's what he did), South will win and lead his small diamond, so South gets the last three tricks (West, btw, gets the 10th trick - after all, he won it in the play) (Law 70). Now one trick is transferred to EW (Law 64A2). Law 64C regarding equity for the NOS, does not apply. In effect, had South not revoked, he would indeed have taken a heart and two diamonds. Instead, he took... a heart and two diamonds, and then gave one trick to EW because of the revoke.

 

Note: West's ♥ lead was subsequent to South's ♦ lead; West played while South was stating the line of play for his claim. If play had continued, that is, if there had been no claim, West's heart would be deemed the proper lead, and South's diamond would be withdrawn (Law 53C). In this case, South's revoke will not have been established, and he would have to correct it. Which leads to the line of play he stated with his claim.

See below.

Edited May 11, 2016 by blackshoe
cleaning up.

[ahydra]

Declarer has claimed. Play ceases. Ignore the ♥ lead from West for the moment. As it was not South's turn, his line of play statement is completely invalid. In addition, he has revoked (Law 61A), and the revoke is established by the claim (Law 63A3). The revoke may not be corrected (Law 63D). Now we adjudicate the claim. West will be deemed to lead his heart (after all, that's what he did), South will win and lead his small diamond, so South gets the last three tricks (West, btw, gets the 10th trick - after all, he won it in the play) (Law 70). Now one trick is transferred to EW (Law 64A2). Law 64C regarding equity for the NOS, does not apply. In effect, had South not revoked, he would indeed have taken a heart and two diamonds. Instead, he took... a heart and two diamonds, and then gave one trick to EW because of the revoke.

 

Note: West's ♥ lead was subsequent to South's ♦ lead; West played while South was stating the line of play for his claim. If play had continued, that is, if there had been no claim, West's heart would be deemed the proper lead, and South's diamond would be withdrawn (Law 53C). In this case, South's revoke will not have been established, and he would have to correct it. Which leads to the line of play he stated with his claim.

 

It says declarer is North, not South. Though something else doesn't make sense in that case, as the OP seems to suggest declarer played from dummy out of turn.

 

OP, can you clarify please?

 

ahydra

[TylerE]

Sorry, reversed E/W. It's EAST that's on lead and West that's irrelevant. North was declarer, south dummy.

[barmar]

Sorry, reversed E/W. It's EAST that's on lead and West that's irrelevant. North was declarer, south dummy.

You can edit your post.

 

And it would be easier to understand if you posted a hand diagram instead of describing the holdings in the text.

[blackshoe]

I think I got the diagram right. Repeated here:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdjtck2&w=shdc&n=shjd2cj3&e=sht2dcaq]399|300[/hv]

 

North is dealer, south is dummy, West's cards are irrelevant.

 

East leads ♥10, North plays ♣2 from dummy (South), west plays an irrelevant card, North plays ♣J thinking he's playing ♥J, then starts to claim, first leading ♦2, stating he will take two diamonds and concede club.

 

Declarer North has claimed. Play ceases. Ignore the ♥ lead from East for the moment. As it was not North's turn, his line of play statement is completely invalid. In addition, he has revoked (Law 61A), and the revoke is established by the claim (Law 63A3). The revoke may not be corrected (Law 63D). Now we adjudicate the claim. East will be deemed to lead his heart (after all, that's what he did), North will win and lead his small diamond, so South gets the last three tricks (East, btw, gets the 10th trick - after all, he won it in the play) (Law 70). Now one trick is transferred to EW (Law 64A2). Law 64C regarding equity for the NOS, does not apply. In effect, had South not revoked, he would indeed have taken a heart and two diamonds. Instead, he took... a heart and two diamonds, and then gave one trick to EW because of the revoke.

 

Note: East's ♥ lead was subsequent to North's ♦ lead; East played while North was stating the line of play for his claim. If play had continued, that is, if there had been no claim, East's heart would be deemed the proper lead, and North's diamond would be withdrawn (Law 53C). In this case, North's revoke will not have been established, and he would have to correct it. Which leads to the line of play he stated with his claim.

[pran]

I think I got the diagram right. Repeated here:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdjtck2&w=shdc&n=shjd2cj3&e=sht2dcaq]399|300[/hv]

 

North is dealer, south is dummy, West's cards are irrelevant.

 

East leads ♥10, North plays ♣2 from dummy (South), west plays an irrelevant card, North plays ♣J thinking he's playing ♥J, then starts to claim, first leading ♦2, stating he will take two diamonds and concede club.

 

Declarer North has claimed. Play ceases. Ignore the ♥ lead from East for the moment. As it was not North's turn, his line of play statement is completely invalid. In addition, he has revoked (Law 61A), and the revoke is established by the claim (Law 63A3). The revoke may not be corrected (Law 63D). Now we adjudicate the claim. East will be deemed to lead his heart (after all, that's what he did), North will win and lead his small diamond, so South gets the last three tricks (East, btw, gets the 10th trick - after all, he won it in the play) (Law 70). Now one trick is transferred to EW (Law 64A2). Law 64C regarding equity for the NOS, does not apply. In effect, had South not revoked, he would indeed have taken a heart and two diamonds. Instead, he took... a heart and two diamonds, and then gave one trick to EW because of the revoke.

 

Note: East's ♥ lead was subsequent to North's ♦ lead; East played while North was stating the line of play for his claim. If play had continued, that is, if there had been no claim, East's heart would be deemed the proper lead, and North's diamond would be withdrawn (Law 53C). In this case, North's revoke will not have been established, and he would have to correct it. Which leads to the line of play he stated with his claim.

This ruling process is wrong, but the eventual result is fortunately correct:

 

The first trick goes ♥T - ♣2 - (?) - ♣J (revoke)

 

To the second trick East leads his ♥2 and North simultaneously leads his ♦2 (simultaneously for the purpose of:

A lead or play made simultaneously with another players legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it.

 

So East's lead of ♥2 stands with North's "lead" of ♦2 deemed to be subsequent to it.

 

This play of ♦2 establishes the original revoke by North and is itself a second revoke in hearts, but this second revoke is not established and must therefore be corrected.

 

The remaining play does not pose any problem (claim or no claim) and ends with one trick to East/West and three tricks to North/South after which we apply

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.

 

ending up with two of the last four tricks to the defense.

[blackshoe]

Depends on whether you consider ♦2 a lead or part of the claim. IMO, it's part of the claim.

[pran]

Depends on whether you consider ♦2 a lead or part of the claim. IMO, it's part of the claim.

A player may certainly claim at any time, but if he initiates his claim by playing a single card instead of first stating that he claims (more than the current trick) I think the correct ruling is that he has indeed played that card. (Remember that a claim must refer to tricks other than the one currently in progress.)

 

Offering a player the possibility to assert that his irregular action (e.g. lead out of turn) was part of a claim and therefore not as such an irregularity (thus avoiding rectification for that irregularity), can easily lead to unsolvable legal problems.

 

In this particular situation is should be clear to everyone that Declarer believed he had won the last trick and that he had the lead to the next. He then led the ♦2, apparently intending to follow up with a legally correct claim.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps the OP will clarify whether "then tables a ♦ claiming 2 of the last 3, conceding a ♣" means declarer tabled a diamond while simultaneously claiming/stating a line of play or means declarer led to the next trick, and then claimed in the middle of that presumed trick.

[TylerE]

Simulataneously / in fact may have even said a few words BEFORE putting the ♦ on the table.

[blackshoe]

Then the ♦ was not a lead out of turn.

[pran]

Then the ♦ was not a lead out of turn.

"Simultaneously" in Law 58A includes situations when the legal (in turn) lead follows the irregularity so rapidly that the player is excused from noticing the irregularity ahead of his own lead.

 

And if the time difference was greater we would expected East to state: "It is my lead" and then lead his ♥2. The fact that he did not so state is itself a strong indication that Law 58A applies.

 

East's lead of ♥2 cannot be dismissed, and whichever way you want to treat the exposure of the ♦ it technically occurred subsequent to this lead.

[axman]

"Simultaneously" in Law 58A includes situations when the legal (in turn) lead follows the irregularity so rapidly that the player is excused from noticing the irregularity ahead of his own lead.

 

And if the time difference was greater we would expected East to state: "It is my lead" and then lead his ♥2. The fact that he did not so state is itself a strong indication that Law 58A applies.

 

East's lead of ♥2 cannot be dismissed, and whichever way you want to treat the exposure of the ♦ it technically occurred subsequent to this lead.

 

"then tables a ♦ claiming 2 of the last 3, conceding a ♣.

 

W leads another ♥ as the claim statement is being made"

 

The statement says that D2 was tabled at the same time clarification began. H2 tabled afterward if only by a litte bit, but apparently before recognizing a clarification in progress.

 

Therefore play stops upon the D2 and further play (H2) is 'voided'.