Dummy revoked

[nige1]

Recently, in a Regional event, In a 4♠ contract, I displayed this dummy

♠ Q x x x ♥ A T x ♦ x ♣ J x x x x

with the ♥T partially obscuring the ace.

 

Declarer won the ♦ lead with his ♦K, ruffed a ♦ in dummy, and attempted to cash the ♥A, which unfortunately transmogrified into the ♦A. My actual hand was

♠ Q x x x ♥ T x ♦ A x ♣ J x x x x

 

Opponents immediately reported dummy's revoke to the director. After consulting the law-book, the director decided to restore equity. Examining all 4 hands, he concluded that the contract would make on any normal play, and he so-ruled.

 

Suppose, however, that with the sight of ♦Ax in dummy, two rounds of ♦s would not be a normal play but would instead put the contract in jeopardy. How should the director then rule?

 

(Declarer's RHO, who held ♥A, realized what had happened as soon as dummy appeared but kept quiet "to prevent divulging UI to his partner").

[scarletv]

Don't you need the lead from dummy to complete the revoke? As there is no ♥A there was no lead only the attempt to lead. I do not think the revoke is completed. I guess I would have ruled that the last trick has to be corrected. The second diamond trick must be won with the ace in dummy and the trump goes back to the table.

[PrecisionL]

Equity is only considered in a revoke situation if the revoke penalty (1 or 2 trick penalty) is not sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. In this case, that is hard to determine without more information.

 

The revoke is established when declarer/dummy plays (legally) or leads to the next trick. Did s/he?

 

I am an ACBL Club Director

[blackshoe]

Law 46B4: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

So at the point the director was called, no card has been played from dummy on trick three. Thus the revoke is not established (Law 63A) and must be corrected (Law 62A). Once that's done, declarer can lead anything he wants from dummy.

 

Opponents immediately reported dummy's revoke to the director. After consulting the law-book, the director decided to restore equity. Examining all 4 hands, he concluded that the contract would make on any normal play, and he so-ruled.

When, exactly, did the director make this ruling? Immediately when he was called to the table? If so, he got it wrong. Actually, either way he got it wrong, because with a correct ruling (see above) there would be no established revoke, no revoke penalty, and no basis for adjusting the score.

 

If the declarer did not correctly (see Law 46A) call for the ♥A, perhaps saying instead "top heart" for example, then he has in fact called for the ♥10 and the revoke is established. Now the ruling is different. The ♥10 is played, play proceeds normally, at the end of play director applies Law 64, including possibly Law 64C. In any case, the director cannot stop play in the middle of the hand and issue an adjusted score.

[gordontd]

So at the point the director was called, no card has been played from dummy on trick three. Thus the revoke is not established (Law 63A) and must be corrected (Law 62A). Once that's done, declarer can lead anything he wants from dummy.

I think we should be looking at 63A2. A revoke is established when a card is designated. It's not necessary for it to have been played and I think there is an inference from 63A1 that we shouldn't be bothered by the card not existing in dummy.

[gordontd]

Equity is only considered in a revoke situation if the revoke penalty (1 or 2 trick penalty) is not sufficient compensation for the non-offending side. In this case, that is hard to determine without more information.

 

The revoke is established when declarer/dummy plays (legally) or leads to the next trick. Did s/he?

 

I am an ACBL Club Director

There is no penalty (rectification) for a revoke from dummy. So they play the hand out and then we restore in equity if necessary.

[mycroft]

Law 64C is in fact used whenever the rectification in A is insufficient. However, not all revokes are subject to L64A rectification, including this one.

B. No Rectification

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:

3. if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy’s

hand.

In order to be fair, Law 64C applies to revokes under B as well.

 

The revoke occurred (DA should have been played), and was established (L63A1 states "any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke", but I'm not sure that calling a card not in dummy is a play. However, L63A2 says "when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick", and that certainly was done, even if the card named didn't exist), and is subject to no rectification (L64B). But if following suit to the second diamond would have resulted in a better score for the defence, we restore equity (L64C).

 

Also note that failure to put down dummy correctly is also an infraction, and if the defence was damaged by that (perhaps LHO would not have to put up the K to force the ruff), we also adjust for that under L12A.

 

If declarer would have taken a better line of play if dummy had been correct, the only lawful rectification is "partner buys the drinks".

 

"Everyone is responsible for dummy" is a canard, but I'm intrigued about RHO. "UI for partner" is laudable, but it's likely he was hoping to get a misplay from declarer (or not give declarer a read on the HA, similar to 5H "two key cards", and seeing who asks about the Queen). I'm not sure how that should affect any LHO confusion ruling.

[steve2005]

I think we should be looking at 63A2. A revoke is established when a card is designated. It's not necessary for it to have been played and I think there is an inference from 63A1 that we shouldn't be bothered by the card not existing in dummy.

You can't designate A♥ if dummy doesn't have it. if 63A1 allows this its surreal.

[blackshoe]

I think we should be looking at 63A2. A revoke is established when a card is designated. It's not necessary for it to have been played and I think there is an inference from 63A1 that we shouldn't be bothered by the card not existing in dummy.

I think if we're looking at 63A2, 63A1 is largely irrelevant. Again, it depends on how the card was designated. "Top heart" would result in a different ruling to "ace of hearts". But what of Law 46B4? If the call was for the ace of hearts, a card not in dummy, the call is void. I don't see where the law says "void for the purpose of playing a card from dummy, but not void for the purpose of determining whether a revoke has been established".

[nige1]

There is no penalty (rectification) for a revoke from dummy. So they play the hand out and then we restore in equity if necessary.

After declarer attempted to play the ♥A, opponents called the director. Before the declarer came, declarer laid his hand down, claiming that he would make ten tricks with or without the revoke (unless the revoke was penalised).

[gordontd]

I think if we're looking at 63A2, 63A1 is largely irrelevant. Again, it depends on how the card was designated.

Not for the purpose of deciding whether or not the revoke is established.

"Top heart" would result in a different ruling to "ace of hearts". But what of Law 46B4? If the call was for the ace of hearts, a card not in dummy, the call is void. I don't see where the law says "void for the purpose of playing a card from dummy, but not void for the purpose of determining whether a revoke has been established".

A card has been designated. That's sufficient to establish a revoke. And the reason I brought up 63A1 was because the law-makers clearly don't care whether or not a play is legal for it to establish a revoke and nor, in my opinion, do they care whether the designation is able to be followed through. It seems obvious to me that they are just saying that anything declarer does in an attempt to move past the current trick is sufficient to establish the revoke.

[gordontd]

You can't designate A♥ if dummy doesn't have it.

"Ace of hearts". There, I just did it. :) You think that was not a designation?

[blackshoe]

I gather he did not state a line of play. :angry: :(

 

Aside from that, he violated

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

That rates a PP.

[pran]

A card has been designated. That's sufficient to establish a revoke. And the reason I brought up 63A1 was because the law-makers clearly don't care whether or not a play is legal for it to establish a revoke and nor, in my opinion, do they care whether the designation is able to be followed through. It seems obvious to me that they are just saying that anything declarer does in an attempt to move past the current trick is sufficient to establish the revoke.

How do you understand the word "void" in

If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

In Law 63 (Establishment of a revoke)

A revoke becomes established:

1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).

2. when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.

3. [...]

While Law 63A1 explicitly includes illegal plays Law 63A2 does not include void (i.e. non-existing) calls for a card. Consequently a void call cannot itself establish a revoke.

[gordontd]

While Law 63A1 explicitly includes illegal plays Law 63A2 does not include void (i.e. non-existing) calls for a card. Consequently a void call cannot itself establish a revoke.

I don't think it needs to. The revoke is already established once the designation is made. I think Law 63 is just concerned with creating a dividing line according to which we decide whether a revoke is established or not. It's not concerned with what happens on the next trick.

[pran]

I don't think it needs to. The revoke is already established once the designation is made. I think Law 63 is just concerned with creating a dividing line according to which we decide whether a revoke is established or not. It's not concerned with what happens on the next trick.

So in your opinion the designation doesn't have to refer to a card in Dummy?

 

Does it have to refer to a card at all?

 

Will Declarer for instance by saying "beer card" establish the revoke?

 

What if he just says "beer"? (to a passing servant)

 

I still think that "the dividing line" is drawn according to Law 46B4

[blackshoe]

I agree with Sven on this one, provided the designatiion was specifically "ace of hearts" or "heart ace" in compliance with Law 46A. If his designation was something like "top heart" then he's called, albeit unknowingly, for the ten of hearts — and that call will stand, establishing the revoke. But there is no ace of hearts in dummy, so the call is void — it didn't happen. Since it didn't happen, the revoke is not established.

[weejonnie]

After declarer attempted to play the ♥A, opponents called the director. Before the declarer came, declarer laid his hand down, claiming that he would make ten tricks with or without the revoke (unless the revoke was penalised).

Well that establishes the revoke anyway! No rectification just equity.

[pran]

Well that establishes the revoke anyway! No rectification just equity.

Absolutely correct, the revoke was indeed established.

Not because he designated a card to be played but because he curtailed the play by claiming.

[barmar]

If his designation was something like "top heart" then he's called, albeit unknowingly, for the ten of hearts

I'm not so sure I agree, because all of 46B is qualified by "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". If it looks like there's a ♥A in dummy, and declarer explains that it was his intent to play that card, I'd have a hard time arguing that he intended ♥10.

[blackshoe]

You may be right, Barry, that the except applies. Is the different intention incontrovertible?

[barmar]

You may be right, Barry, that the except applies. Is the different intention incontrovertible?

If no one noticed the incorrect dummy layout until he was moving the card into position, I think his actual intent should be quite clear. And you can add to this whether playing the ♥10 at that point makes any bridge sense.

[pigpenz]

I always thought all players were responsible for dummy.

so how can dummy revoke?

 

I guess it was an old 1948 law

http://www.acbl.org/clubs_page/club-administration/club-directors/rulings-faq/a-missing-card-in-dummy/

[pran]

I always thought all players were responsible for dummy.

so how can dummy revoke?

 

I guess it was an old 1948 law

http://www.acbl.org/clubs_page/club-administration/club-directors/rulings-faq/a-missing-card-in-dummy/

ACBL may have had it's own Laws issued in 1948, but the internationoal Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge agreed upon and promulgated (at the time) by:

The Portland Club, The European Bridge League and The National Laws Commission of America were dated 1949.

 

I found no rule here with an effect that "all players are responsible for dummy", the closest I found is in Law 76 ("Procedure when a revoke is established") :

 

[There is no penalty for an established revoke: ..... ]

(d) If it is made in failing to play any card faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand or a penalty card.

[WellSpyder]

I always thought all players were responsible for dummy.

so how can dummy revoke?

Perhaps all the players at the table were irresponsible?