Jam Tarts

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s87h87532d765cj53&w=skt43hqjdqjtck765&n=saq62hakt9dakcaq4&e=sj95h64d98432ct98&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n(12-14)dp2hp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

IMP Pairs. Table Result 6H-1. Lead Q♦

 

The above board occurred at a North London Club this week, and the Hog, who was not at this table, had generously brought in lots of jam tarts and cream eggs he had left over from Easter. The Rabbit, West, was just finishing one particularly sticky treacle tart when the auction came to an end. Walter the Walrus put down dummy and commented: "26 points partner, and you bid at the 2-level. Maybe I should be looking for grand."

 

SB had a plan, and won the lead in dummy, cashed a top trump and continued with another one. He correctly specified "ace of hearts" and "king of hearts", of course, rather than risk being ruled against for an incomplete designation. On the first of these RR contributed the jack of hearts but on the second he discarded the two of clubs! Timothy the Toucan, his partner, recalled that RR had opened 1NT and was particularly quick to ask "No hearts, partner?". The rabbit checked through his cards, some of which were sticking together a little because of the adhesive effects of the second treacle tart he had eaten, but the Rabbit said "No, sowwy, not got any", with his mouth full. SB shrugged, although he was surprised that the Rabbit had opened 1NT with a singleton and only 10 or 11 points, and he continued with another heart to East's putative queen. When East showed out, discarding a diamond, it was clear that something was amiss and the TD, OO, was called.

 

"RR is deliberately attempting to conceal a revoke," started SB, "he was asked whether he had any more hearts by the Toucan and he said he didn't". "The revoke is established now as well, as his partner has played to the next trick." RR was taken aback. "I don't have any more hearts", he said. "How many cards do you have?" asked Oscar the Owl, the TD. "Nine", replied the Rabbit. "Well, everyone else has ten, excluding this trick". "And I think I can see the problem. There are two cards clearly stuck together on your second trick, to which you played both the queen and jack of hearts." The rabbit went bright red. "Oh dear", he said. "I remember now having ♥QJ doubleton when I opened 1NT".

 

"OK", said the Owl. "This one is not too complicated. The ♥Q is restored to RR's hand and is now a major penalty card. The revoke was established when East discarded a diamond to trick four. Play continues and one trick is transferred at the end to North-South. If equity needs to be restored then I will do so at the end of the hand." "Is it not two tricks?" asked RR, "most of my revokes are." "No, just one here, the offender did not win the revoke trick. The additional penalty when he wins a trick with a card that he could have played to the revoke trick was abolished some years ago" replied OO.

 

RR won the fourth trick perforce with the queen of hearts, the MPC, and exited with a diamond. SB tried the queen of clubs from dummy, but RR ducked, stating that he had not deserved to win his queen of hearts and SB needed to get two tricks for his stupid revoke and one was unfair. However the contract could no longer be made.

 

SB called OO back. "I think the Laws did not indemnify me for the particular type of infraction committed by RR. If he had not played two cards to one trick, he would not have felt guilty and surely would have won his king of clubs and the contract would have made. Also if RR had not attempted to conceal the revoke by lying when asked if he had any hearts, the revoke would not have been established, and the two of clubs would have become an MPC and I would have made the contract by playing a club to my jack. He could have been aware that denying that he ever had a second heart would damage the non-offenders."

 

"Well, it should be blindingly obvious to duck the ♣Q, even to RR", replied OO. "And I don't think failing to correct the revoke was an infraction, as RR was not aware that he had revoked. Let me consult".

 

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

"attempted to conceal the revoke by lying" is an accusation of cheating with no basis, and HH knows it. So I toss his objection out the window, and issue him a DP. Aside from that, the original ruling stands.

[barmar]

And before you bring it up, I again don't think that the "could have known it would advantage his side" clause applies to this. It would take extreme expert level analysis to figure out at trick 2 that the way to avoid the end-play is to play both hearts to the trick.

[lamford]

And before you bring it up, I again don't think that the "could have known it would advantage his side" clause applies to this. It would take extreme expert level analysis to figure out at trick 2 that the way to avoid the end-play is to play both hearts to the trick.

I think SB's main claim is that RR deliberately concealed the revoke, not that he knowingly played two cards to the same trick which did not benefit him. RR could have been aware that he started with two hearts (by looking at his hand). He could have been aware that only one round of trumps had been played (by paying attention), and he now had no hearts, yet he just answered the Toucan with "sorry no hearts". He could also have been aware that if he owned up to starting with two hearts, the revoke would not have been established and the two of clubs would become a major penalty card. He could have been aware that SB would now have a deadly entry to his own hand if he had the jack of clubs (because of the MPC). All of these were well within the scope of even a rabbit to work out.

[sanst]

Well, SB is his usual self again, accusing RR of cheating and at the same time telling that he is clairvoyant. How else would RR know that SB has the jack of clubs? Another PP, not that it will make a difference.

But RR deserves a PP as well. You shouldn't eat and play your cards at the same time, lett alone treacle tart. Talking with a mouth full of that treat is certainly a disgusting behaviour and therefore a serious breach of law 74. Glueing the cards together is another breach of proper procedure. So he deserves a serious PP as well.

SB's beloved "could have know" argument is quite nonsensical in this case. How could RR, who only half remembered that he started with two hearts, have the brains to figure out this endplay? Rabits are notoriously stupid and RR is no exception.

[sanst]

This is proof of the fact that clubs should have a rule prohibiting sticky or greasy foods at or near the tables. You can eat these at the bar, but should wash your hands, and probably your face too, afterwards. :)

[lamford]

Well, SB is his usual self again, accusing RR of cheating and at the same time telling that he is clairvoyant. How else would RR know that SB has the jack of clubs? Another PP, not that it will make a difference.

But RR deserves a PP as well. You shouldn't eat and play your cards at the same time, lett alone treacle tart. Talking with a mouth full of that treat is certainly a disgusting behaviour and therefore a serious breach of law 74. Glueing the cards together is another breach of proper procedure. So he deserves a serious PP as well.

SB's beloved "could have know" argument is quite nonsensical in this case. How could RR, who only half remembered that he started with two hearts, have the brains to figure out this endplay? Rabits are notoriously stupid and RR is no exception.

All RR had to work out was that he did better to allow the revoke to become established. He could have been aware that the queen of hearts had either been played as a fifth card to a trick or had fallen on the floor and yet he claimed not to have a second heart, when he started with two. And there was no endplay. It was just an entry-creating MPC that he avoided.

 

I am sure if SB had been West and RR South, you would all be rushing to penalise SB with an adjustment.

[axman]

[hv=pc=n&s=s87h87532d765cj53&w=skt43hqjdqjtck765&n=saq62hakt9dakcaq4&e=sj95h64d98432ct98&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n(12-14)dp2hp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

IMP Pairs. Table Result 6H-1. Lead Q♦

 

The above board occurred at a North London Club this week, and the Hog, who was not at this table, had generously brought in lots of jam tarts and cream eggs he had left over from Easter. The Rabbit, West, was just finishing one particularly sticky treacle tart when the auction came to an end here. Walter the Walrus put down dummy and commented: "26 points partner, and you bid at the 2-level. Maybe I should be looking for grand."

 

SB had a plan, and won the lead in dummy, cashed a top trump and continued with another one. He correctly specified "ace of hearts" and "king of hearts", of course, rather than risk being ruled against for an incomplete designation. On the first of these RR contributed the jack of hearts but on the second he discarded the two of clubs! Timothy the Toucan, his partner, recalled that RR had opened 1NT and was particularly quick to ask "No hearts, partner?". The rabbit checked through his cards, some of which were sticking together a little because of the adhesive effects of the second treacle tart he had eaten, but the Rabbit said "No, sowwy, not got any", with his mouth full. SB shrugged, although he was surprised that the Rabbit had opened 1NT with a singleton and only 10 or 11 points, and he continued with another heart to East's putative queen. When East showed out, discarding a diamond, it was clear that something was amiss and the TD, OO, was called.

 

"RR is deliberately attempting to conceal a revoke," started SB, "he was asked whether he had any more hearts by the Toucan and he said he didn't". "The revoke is established now as well, as his partner has played to the next trick." RR was taken aback. "I don't have any more hearts", he said. "How many cards do you have?" asked Oscar the Owl, the TD. "Nine", replied the Rabbit. "Well, everyone else has ten, excluding this trick". "And I think I can see the problem. There are two cards clearly stuck together on your second trick, to which you played both the queen and jack of hearts." The rabbit went bright red. "Oh dear", he said. "I remember now having ♥QJ doubleton when I opened 1NT".

 

"OK", said the Owl. "This one is not too complicated. The ♥Q is restored to RR's hand and is now a major penalty card. The revoke was established when East discarded a diamond to trick four. Play continues and one trick is transferred at the end to North-South. If equity needs to be restored then I will do so at the end of the hand." "Is it not two tricks?" asked RR, "most of my revokes are." "No, just one here, the offender did not win the revoke trick. The additional penalty when he wins a trick with a card that he could have played to the revoke trick was abolished some years ago" replied OO.

 

RR won the fourth trick perforce with the queen of hearts, the MPC, and exited with a diamond. SB tried the queen of clubs from dummy, but RR ducked, stating that he had not deserved to win his queen of hearts and SB needed to get two tricks for his stupid revoke and one was unfair. However the contract could no longer be made.

 

SB called OO back. "I think the Laws did not indemnify me for the particular type of infraction committed by RR. If he had not played two cards to one trick, he would not have felt guilty and surely would have won his king of clubs and the contract would have made. Also if RR had not attempted to conceal the revoke by lying when asked if he had any hearts, the revoke would not have been established, and the two of clubs would have become an MPC and I would have made the contract by playing a club to my jack. He could have been aware that denying that he ever had a second heart would damage the non-offenders."

 

"Well, it should be blindingly obvious to duck the ♣Q, even to RR", replied OO. "And I don't think failing to correct the revoke was an infraction, as RR was not aware that he had revoked. Let me consult".

 

How do you rule?

 

 

Had the revoke been corrected (L62A) as required, the position would have had W with C2 PC. Then a small club to the J will hold, spade hook, top spade and spade ruff to hand, permits a club hook, top club, and spade ruff for 13 tricks.

[lamford]

Had the revoke been corrected (L62A) as required, the position would have had W with C2 PC. Then a small club to the J will hold, spade hook, top spade and spade ruff to hand, permits a club hook, top club, and spade ruff for 13 tricks.

Unfortunately, the revoke was only discovered once the Toucan discarded on the third heart, establishing the revoke. Then, the following applies:

 

63B. Revoke May Not Be Corrected

Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

 

Of course Oscar the Owl can restore equity, but the revoke itself did not gain any tricks at all, it was the establishment of the revoke (whether accidentally or intentionally) that gained two tricks. It is not clear from the Laws whether keeping quiet about a revoke in order to establish it is legal, or what the equity is that has to be restored.

[weejonnie]

This is proof of the fact that clubs should have a rule prohibiting sticky or greasy foods at or near the tables. You can eat these at the bar, but should wash your hands, and probably your face too, afterwards. :)

Or maybe even stick the food between a couple of slices of bread. Now that's a novel idea.

[weejonnie]

Unfortunately, the revoke was only discovered once the Toucan discarded on the third heart, establishing the revoke. Then, the following applies:

 

63B. Revoke May Not Be Corrected

Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

 

Of course Oscar the Owl can restore equity, but the revoke itself did not gain any tricks at all, it was the establishment of the revoke (whether accidentally or intentionally) that gained two tricks. It is not clear from the Laws whether keeping quiet about a revoke in order to establish it is legal, or what the equity is that has to be restored.

 

Obite - in fact if someone becomes aware they have revoked they need not correct it under the new rules - only if attention is drawn to it before it is established.

[lamford]

Obite - in fact if someone becomes aware they have revoked they need not correct it under the new rules - only if attention is drawn to it before it is established.

I wonder if the TD should decide that someone could have been aware they had revoked, and restore equity according to the better result (from the point of view of the non-offenders) between the defender drawing attention to it and not drawing attention to it. It does not seem right that a good player is allowed to work out whether it is better to have an established revoke or a major penalty card. Mind you, good players rarely revoke in my experience.

[weejonnie]

I wonder if the TD should decide that someone could have been aware they had revoked, and restore equity according to the better result (from the point of view of the non-offenders) between the defender drawing attention to it and not drawing attention to it. It does not seem right that a good player is allowed to work out whether it is better to have an established revoke or a major penalty card. Mind you, good players rarely revoke in my experience.

I suppose that if the player was a good - but cold calculating - one then 72C can be used. However the 'time of the irregularity' is the time that the player failed to follow suit, not the time that he became aware of it (at least not under the new rules), and the next 'time of the irregularity' is when he fails to correct the revoke when attention is drawn to it (assuming this is done before it is established).

 

Incidentally: does partner saying "Having none?" draw attention to the revoke? One can certainly argue that it doesn't.

[lamford]

Incidentally: does partner saying "Having none?" draw attention to the revoke? One can certainly argue that it doesn't.

I don't think it does. And under the new laws, the player can reply to the question, "Having no hearts" with "Give me a moment while I decide whether the MPC is worse or better than the established revoke." I think this makes the game more skilful, but others might disagree.

[blackshoe]

Not, I think, under laws which say both that a player who has revoked is only required to correct his revoke if attention is drawn to it and that a player is not required to draw attention to his own side's irregularity (new law 9A5).

[Vampyr]

Incidentally: does partner saying "Having none?" draw attention to the revoke? One can certainly argue that it doesn't.

 

That would be a strange argument, but the legality of lamford's reply above is interesting. If there is still not a law that states that you have to follow suit, then the TD cannot make the player do this.

 

This case is loosely based on an incident that actually happened. A player revoked, and corrected it, and the MPC was worth about three tricks when established revoked have cost one. The player asked me about it afterwards, because he felt hard done by, and I agreed that it was unfair, since he could instead have allowed the revoke to become established. I started a topic about it on this forum and was told that it was too rare an occurrence to worry about, but I don't see why the laws should have flaws that only make a difference once in awhile.

[barmar]

Incidentally: does partner saying "Having none?" draw attention to the revoke? One can certainly argue that it doesn't.

I think it draws attention to it to the revoker when he notices the card in his hand while responding to the question. And then when he admits having the card it draws attention to it to the other players.

 

But in the OP, RR looks in his hand and doesn't see a heart, so it still doesn't draw his attention to it. If it jogs his memory of his original hand, or causes him to notice that he has too few cards in his hand, it might draw his attention to the fact that something has gone wrong. But RR was obviously oblivious to these details -- he didn't remember his original holding until the TD was investigating what happened.

[lamford]

... it was too rare an occurrence to worry about, but I don't see why the laws should have flaws that only make a difference once in awhile.

Indeed, every time someone revokes they should, under the new laws, make a quick decision whether to admit to it or not, before it is established. So, every non-established revoke (about twice a week at this North London Club, one of which is usually RR) gives the defender an interesting defensive problem. Much of the time, the MPC will cost more than one trick. Perhaps there should be an Encyclopedia of Non-Established Revokes just like the Encyclopedia of Card Combinations.

[axman]

Unfortunately, the revoke was only discovered once the Toucan discarded on the third heart, establishing the revoke. Then, the following applies:

 

63B. Revoke May Not Be Corrected

Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

 

Of course Oscar the Owl can restore equity, but the revoke itself did not gain any tricks at all, it was the establishment of the revoke (whether accidentally or intentionally) that gained two tricks. It is not clear from the Laws whether keeping quiet about a revoke in order to establish it is legal, or what the equity is that has to be restored.

 

The failure to contribute a heart (re L67) when holding <sic> a heart was a revoke and attention was drawn to the occurence, where L62A requires correction. That, for whatever reason, the player did not acknowledge the revoke still has consequence laid out in L62A.

[blackshoe]

The question "having none, partner" or similar does not call attention to an irregularity. It calls attention to the possibility of an irregularity. If partner says he has none, still attention has not been called to an irregularity. Only if partner says "sorry, I do have one" or similar is attention called to an irregularity.

[axman]

The question "having none, partner" or similar does not call attention to an irregularity. It calls attention to the possibility of an irregularity. If partner says he has none, still attention has not been called to an irregularity. Only if partner says "sorry, I do have one" or similar is attention called to an irregularity.

 

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

[lamford]

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

That is quite a good argument, but if East had the queen of hearts then there would not have been a revoke. SB missed a trick here. He should have considered the possibility that RR had revoked and had dropped or lost the queen of hearts somewhere, and called the director at that point, even though there was still the possibility that there was no revoke. He could have done so on the basis that if there was no revoke, he wanted the hand recorded (an opening 1NT with a singleton) and if there was he wanted the queen of hearts to be located and played (to make the 2C an MPC).

 

It also does seem to be a lacuna in the laws, first pointed out by Vampyr, that a player can gain by lying in response to the question "having none". Maybe one for the 2027 rewrite ...

[blackshoe]

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

It is also true that when he says he has none, attention has still not been called to an irregularity.

[lamford]

It is also true that when he says he has none, attention has still not been called to an irregularity.

So, do you think someone could deliberately say, "No, I don't have any" and then, when the TD comes and finds that he still has the QH in his hand, it just becomes an established revoke?

[blackshoe]

I think if he deliberately lied, and continues to deliberately lie, about knowing he revoked, it will be very hard for the director to prove otherwise. In fact, in the ACBL, I think the director's correct action if he truly suspects lying is to report the incident to the Unit Recorder. In England, I suppose he could refer the case to a Conduct and Ethics Committee, but I'm not really conversant with procedures there.