Jam Tarts

[lamford]

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.

It is not clear whether he is allowed to lie in response to the question "having no hearts?", especially as the new Law 9A5 (and the old Law 9A4) says: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side". As you correctly observed, "having no hearts?" does not draw attention to an irregularity, and the player is under no obligation to do so. I think he does have to answer truthfully if asked by the TD, however, as 72B3 says: "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely." I would say that lying to the TD was attempting to conceal an infraction, and it could be argued that lying to your partner's question was as well. And it should be noted that the requirement for the revoke to be corrected is "if [a player] becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." It does not matter if attention has been drawn to it, so axman is wrong as RR was not aware of the irregularity.

[barmar]

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. :)

Hear, hear! How many of these SB threads involved food in some way?

 

There was one last year involving a hesitation when RR (I think) spilled coffee/tea, and SB argued that he "could have known" that this would work to his advantage.

[Vampyr]

About this "having none"... not many people say it, but it should be in their strategic arsenal. What players need to do is evaluate how damaging the MPC will be. If not a lot, they should ask partner to have another look. On the other hand, when the MPC will be more expensive than the established revoke, they should keep mum, with a good chance of the revoke now becoming established.

 

The revoker, for his part, must aim to play the card he didn't play at the most damaging (to declarer) possible moment. The idea is to make sure that the revoke penalty will be insufficient to restore equity, in which case you don't have to pay it at all!

[lamford]

There was one last year involving a hesitation when RR (I think) spilled coffee/tea, and SB argued that he "could have known" that this would work to his advantage.

I recall it well. Did he not expose an ace in trying to avoid being burnt, and this worked to his advantage?

[lamford]

About this "having none"... not many people say it, but it should be in their strategic arsenal. What players need to do is evaluate how damaging the MPC will be. If not a lot, they should ask partner to have another look. On the other hand, when the MPC will be more expensive than the established revoke, they should keep mum, with a good chance of the revoke now becoming established.

 

The revoked, for his part, must aim to play the card he didn't play at the most damaging (to declarer) possible moment. The idea is to make sure that the revoke penalty will be insufficient to restore equity, in which case you don't have to pay it at all!

And I think when the question is asked, they should both take time to consider whether to admit to the revoke or not. I foresee a new genre of defensive problems in bridge literature, where the first question is. "Do you establish the revoke or not?" The second question is "When do you intend to play the revoke card?"

[Vampyr]

And I think when the question is asked, they should both take time to consider whether to admit to the revoke or not. I foresee a new genre of defensive problems in bridge literature, where the first question is. "Do you establish the revoke or not?" The second question is "When do you intend to play the revoke card?"

 

There is a bit of a problem, as I have just discovered. L44C says that you must follow suit if possible, and that it is, in fact, the most important law.

 

However the only penalty for failing to do so is in the revoke laws. So the "holding up" gambit is illegal, but with no penalty what is to prevent players with questionable ethics from doing it?

[weejonnie]

There is a bit of a problem, as I have just discovered. L44C says that you must follow suit if possible, and that it is, in fact, the most important law.

 

However the only penalty for failing to do so is in the revoke laws. So the "holding up" gambit is illegal, but with no penalty what is to prevent players with questionable ethics from doing it?

Aren't you forgetting Law 72B3

 

3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke,  concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. 

 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

[Vampyr]

Aren't you forgetting Law 72B3

 

3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke,  concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. 

 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

 

Ah, right. But some directors are loathe to award DPs...

[lamford]

3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

Indeed. I think once you discover that you have revoked you then have to follow suit thereafter when you can, but you do not have to own up to having revoked. You can discard the revoke card whenever you like, however, or keep it until the end (but not by committing a second revoke).

[blackshoe]

Ah, right. But some directors are loathe to award DPs...

Not sure a DP is appropriate here. A PP would certainly be. Of course, some directors are loathe to award those as well.

[Vampyr]

Not sure a DP is appropriate here. A PP would certainly be. Of course, some directors are loathe to award those as well.

 

I think a DP because it is deliberately flouting the rules.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, I guess that works.

[WellSpyder]

About this "having none"... not many people say it, but it should be in their strategic arsenal. What players need to do is evaluate how damaging the MPC will be. If not a lot, they should ask partner to have another look. On the other hand, when the MPC will be more expensive than the established revoke, they should keep mum, with a good chance of the revoke now becoming established.

Wouldn't that strategy give UI?

[lamford]

Wouldn't that strategy give UI?

No more so than waiting to see if partner wants to accept the lead out of turn when declarer leads from the wrong hand. Effectively that is saying, "what do you think about accepting this lead, pard?". UI cannot arise from the lawful procedures which includes "having none". It is something "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" and specified as AI. So, you can ask if it is in your interest to correct the revoke before it becomes established.

 

It would be quite wrong, however, to ask in order to convey information, indeed the "gravest possible offence" as stated in 73B2.

[barmar]

Aren't you forgetting Law 72B3

 

3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke,  concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. 

 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

The second revoke would also violate 72B1:

 

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

 

I'd even suggest that knowingly giving an incorrect answer to "having none?" is a violation of these two laws.

[lamford]

I'd even suggest that knowingly giving an incorrect answer to "having none?" is a violation of these two laws.

I would agree, also because of 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." However, the Toucan could have worked out that RR had probably revoked, probably with the QH as RR had played the jack on the previous round and the ten was in dummy, and that it was probably not in his side's interests to ask "having none?" as the MPC would be more expensive than the revoke penalty.

 

Ask no questions and hear no lies ...

[barmar]

I would agree, also because of 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." However, the Toucan could have worked out that RR had probably revoked, probably with the QH as RR had played the jack on the previous round and the ten was in dummy, and that it was probably not in his side's interests to ask "having none?" as the MPC would be more expensive than the revoke penalty.

 

Ask no questions and hear no lies ...

Most players who ask "having none?" do it reflexively, not depending on whether it's in their side's interest. In fact, if you're not consistent in it, there could be UI implications.

 

I'm not an asker, but my partner is. And he even asks on the 4th round of a suit, everyone having followed to the first 3.

 

Which raises an interesting question. If I were to follow to the 4th round, implying a fouled board, should he ask "having some?"

[Vampyr]

Most players who ask "having none?" do it reflexively, not depending on whether it's in their side's interest. In fact, if you're not consistent in it, there could be UI implications.

 

I'm not an asker, but my partner is. And he even asks on the 4th round of a suit, everyone having followed to the first 3.

 

Which raises an interesting question. If I were to follow to the 4th round, implying a fouled board, should he ask "having some?"

 

LOL

 

Around here it is fairly normal for Dummy to ask, but not usually defenders. So if partner shows up with the 14th card of the suit, is dummy allowed to comment? I suspect not.

 

If it is the defenders, and they ask "reflexively", that is to say always, I don't care what they do, as I am not attending that game for the sake of my sanity. B-)

[lamford]

Most players who ask "having none?" do it reflexively, not depending on whether it's in their side's interest. In fact, if you're not consistent in it, there could be UI implications.

I cannot see any UI in whether someone asks, as it is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". It is different to questions about an artificial bid, which obviously can give UI that you are thinking of bidding depending on the response. I can see some form of illegal communication in "having none?" in a quizzical manner in that you are surprised that partner has shown out as that means the 1NT opener has 8 clubs.

[weejonnie]

LOL

 

Around here it is fairly normal for Dummy to ask, but not usually defenders. So if partner shows up with the 14th card of the suit, is dummy allowed to comment? I suspect not.

 

If it is the defenders, and they ask "reflexively", that is to say always, I don't care what they do, as I am not attending that game for the sake of my sanity. B-)

Definitely not! Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity (this has been strengthened from 'should not' in the new laws). (Although he may attempt to prevent any irregularity (by any player not just declarer in the new rules.)). He can only draw attention the regularity when he ceases being dummy (now defined as when play ceases) - NB :this means that when a claim is made, dummy remains dummy while play is suspended and so cannot draw attention to any irregularity at that stage (for example play may under the new laws continue). The law-makers forgot to say that 'play ceases' when either Law 69 or Law 70 is invoked afterwards, which makes it a potential grey area. e.g. defenders agree a claim and then dummy points out that one of them revoked - can he do this?

 

Hearing 'having none' reflexively is not really insanity causing once you get used to and expect it.

[Vampyr]

Hearing 'having none' reflexively is not really insanity causing once you get used to and expect it.

 

I think this indicates that you have already gone insane.

[blackshoe]

Definitely not! Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity (this has been strengthened from 'should not' in the new laws).

I think you're mis-remembering. Both the new and the current laws say that dummy may not call attention to an irregularity. The change from "should not" to "may not" is in the bit about calling the director when attention has not been drawn to an irregularity.

[barmar]

The law-makers forgot to say that 'play ceases' when either Law 69 or Law 70 is invoked afterwards, which makes it a potential grey area. e.g. defenders agree a claim and then dummy points out that one of them revoked - can he do this?

They intentionally changed Law 68 to say "play is suspended" instead of "play ceases". This is because of the new provision that allows play to resume if the non-claiming side requests after doubting the claim and all 4 players agree.

 

But if play doesn't continue, the TD has to be called, and he determines all the facts. He's presumably allowed to ask dummy questions, and dummy must answer him, so dummy restrictions don't apply at that point. There's a general rule that no one is supposed to take any action while waiting for the TD.