The Rabbit Recovers

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s2hjt876dkjt9ckj4&w=sakq54hq2d865caq3&n=sjt876hk943daqc75&e=s93ha5d7432ct9862&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sdp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

Table Result 4♥-1 Lead K♠.

 

"'O kestuns", mumbled RR, East, as West led on the above hand from the North London Bridge Club Christmas Party. The rabbit was busy scoffing his third treacle tart which Molly the Mule insisted on bringing each year despite its high sugar content. MM, North had an equally disgusting takeout double (four hearts and rule of 19, partner), and SB, South, bid game, not trusting Molly's judgement if he bid only 3H. ChCh had led the king of spades, for count, and RR immediately played the nine. It was clear to ChCh that RR had a singleton mainly from the speed of his play and he continued with the queen of spades. RR, whose three of spades had got stuck to the nine of spades with the treacle, thought South must have the ace and ruffed this low, over-ruffed by SB, who now advanced the jack of hearts. ChCh was on the ball, and did not call the TD to "un-establish" the revoke, but also took more than a few seconds to play low, commenting "not thinking about this trick", to get himself off the hook later. SB rose with the king, and RR won and had to guess which minor to switch to. Surprisingly he got it right and led the ten of clubs. The defence took two clubs, two trumps and the ace of spades, but had to give up one trick for the revoke, so the contract was one off.

 

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" summoned SB, livid with rage and frothing at the mouth, as he had by now discovered the revoke. "West breached 72B3: 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. Note that it says "as by", which we all know by now encompasses anything, including failing to call the TD when noticing it. An MPC for East would have been fatal, which would have been the case if West had not concealed the revoke. And West also breached 73D1 by breaking tempo when the J♥ was led". He quoted: "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."

 

OO had arrived and ChCh had his say. "There was no obligation on me to stop the revoke becoming established", he began. "72B2 states: In general there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side." He continued:"And I had a demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT, in that I had to work out whether it was better to call the TD and correct the revoke, which I obviously knew about. I worked out that the MPC would be catastrophic and that declarer would be able to play one round of trumps and then revert to diamonds, making the contract. Under 73E2, the TD can only adjust if there was no demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT and here there was." "So, up yours, SB", he concluded.

 

"Well, the revoke did not gain at all and I don't think that I can go back to that point now", said OO. "I should have been called at the time and it would not have been established and the contract would indeed have made. And if there had been no revoke, the contract would surely have gone one down. And the revoke had no effect whatsoever on the success or otherwise of the contract, which could always be made on the spade continuation."

 

"How could I have known to do that, you cretin?", exploded SB. "I suggest you go on one of those excellent EBU courses to bone up on the laws." "And RR could have been aware that eating treacle tart could cause two cards to stick together, causing a revoke which would not be noticed by declarer and that this could well damage the non-offending side," he rather fancifully concluded.

 

How do you rule?

[HardVector]

Nice story, enjoyed it.,

 

I let the result (with revoke) stand. Declarer should always play 3 rounds of diamonds to ditch a club before going after hearts. If east has only 1 spade then he is a favorite to hold length in all the other suits. 72B3 sounds like you shouldn't try to conceal YOUR mistakes, not your partners. This is highlighted by 72B2 in which you are not obligated to tell the opponent that a mistake has occurred. 72C seems a bit more relevant, but I can't see how west would know that the misinformation of spade length would help EW. BIT just tells declarer that you have more than 1 card to play (true). I would only penalize if done with a small singleton or if the action clearly influenced partners subsequent play.

 

Just because the opponents have made a mistake (infraction), does not allow you to misplay a hand and still retain a good result.

[lamford]

Just because the opponents have made a mistake (infraction), does not allow you to misplay a hand and still retain a good result.

Cashing three rounds of diamonds first is not without risk either, and even if SB's line was sub-optimal, you would not deny redress if there were an infraction by EW as his line was far from SEWoG. It does seem, however, that the laws do not allow the TD to restore equity to that which would have been achieved if the revoke was not established, and I think they should.

[blackshoe]

It seems a disciplinary penalty is due SB for calling the Director a cretin. I suggest 200% of a top.

[barmar]

The North London Club clearly needs to ban all food and drink. How many of these stories have involved cards sticking together because of treacle, or players dropping cards because someone spilled hot coffee/tea on them?

[lamford]

It seems a disciplinary penalty is due SB for calling the Director a cretin. I suggest 200% of a top.

I presume under

74B5: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

As SB would be quick to point out, this is a "should" clause, where infractions are not normally punished. So 200% is way too much.

[lamford]

The North London Club clearly needs to ban all food and drink. How many of these stories have involved cards sticking together because of treacle, or players dropping cards because someone spilled hot coffee/tea on them?

Three out of the last 101. The committee met yesterday and decided that this was insufficient to ban all food and drink.

[Gerardo]

I presume under

74B5: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

As SB would be quick to point out, this is a "should" clause, where infractions are not normally punished. So 200% is way too much.

 

What about his history? At one point the "should" should become a "must" on (even worse, intentional) ocurrences.

How much was he penalized on this? A proper sliding scale may have him at 200%.

 

[weejonnie]

This tale is pur efantasy - RR is a scrupulously ethical player and would never dream of breaking tempo with a singleton. That aside ChCh no doubt applied his own morals.

 

Assuming ChCh 'knew' that RR had a singleton, the 1st question to arise is: was there any logical alternative to leading a 2nd round of spades? Would anyone lead a small diamond through the AQ asking for a club back if RR had the king, for instance?

 

the pertinent laws are 72B

 

2. In general there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by

one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).

 

Law 62A A. Revoke Must Be Corrected

A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes

established.

 

Note that this has changed - it used to be that the revoke had to be corrected if the player became aware of it.

 

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.

 

All this is irrelevant of course: there is no legal way that Charlie knows for certain that it is RR who has revoked and not SB. (obiter dictum: In fact the laws were changed to cover the situation where both sides revoke but only one revoke is established.)

[lamford]

there is no legal way that Charlie knows for certain that it is RR who has revoked and not SB

He could have been aware that RR, who was eating treacle tart and often breaches 74B1, which is part of the etiquette, could have caused two cards to be stuck together. ChCh could possibly have seen that two cards were played by RR to trick one. Also SB has never revoked in 30 years at the North London club. He knew that RR had revoked, but the Laws as they stand allow ChCh to keep quiet about it and not draw attention to RR's revoke, even though he benefits by so doing.

[sanst]

I’m wondering that nobody seems to have noticed that the second trick was a defective one. At some point the players must have discovered that RR had a card less than the others. At that point the director must have been summoned; I can’t believe that SB agreed to solving the infraction by the players themselves. So, it’s impossible that you can be certain that the result was -1, it’s the TD’s responsibility to restore equity, starting with Law 67B2.

[sanst]

He could have been aware that RR, who was eating treacle tart and often breaches 74B1, which is part of the etiquette, could have caused two cards to be stuck together. He could possibly have seen that two cards were played by RR to trick one. Also SB has never revoked in 30 years at the North London club. He knew that RR had revoked, but the Laws as they stand allow ChCh to keep quiet about it and not draw attention to RR's revoke, even though he benefits by so doing.

Not revoking in thirty years doesn’t prove anything. Prisons are overflowing with criminals who never killed, maimed or otherwise broke the law in over thirty years, but did it nevertheless.

[lamford]

Not revoking in thirty years doesn’t prove anything. Prisons are overflowing with criminals who never killed, maimed or otherwise broke the law in over thirty years, but did it nevertheless.

The silver bullet is the rabbit's average of one revoke per week.

[lamford]

I’m wondering that nobody seems to have noticed that the second trick was a defective one. At some point the players must have discovered that RR had a card less than the others. At that point the director must have been summoned; I can’t believe that SB agreed to solving the infraction by the players themselves. So, it’s impossible that you can be certain that the result was -1, it’s the TD’s responsibility to restore equity, starting with Law 67B2.

The TD did discover the defective trick when he was called, as did RR at that point. The fifth card was restored to the East hand, and his revoke at trick two was established. By then the contract was two down, and was changed to one down. Sorry not to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s.

[weejonnie]

I’m wondering that nobody seems to have noticed that the second trick was a defective one. At some point the players must have discovered that RR had a card less than the others. At that point the director must have been summoned; I can’t believe that SB agreed to solving the infraction by the players themselves. So, it’s impossible that you can be certain that the result was -1, it’s the TD’s responsibility to restore equity, starting with Law 67B2.

I noticed - but the rectification for a trick with 5 cards is that the director asks which one was superfluous and if not clear plays the highest one and returns the lower one to the offender's hand. (Where if it had to be played earlier would constitute a revoke). So, assuming, a spade wasn't led later I decided it was irrelevant to the discussion. If the card had been exposed (in this case it was obscured by the treacle) it would have become a MPC.

 

(There is nothing about 'equity' in Law 67B2 - just rectification). Revoke laws are ones where Equity is only applied after the fixed rectification (if applicable).

[blackshoe]

I presume under

74B5: summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

As SB would be quick to point out, this is a "should" clause, where infractions are not normally punished. So 200% is way too much.

For a first offense, perhaps, but SB has been doing this for how many years now?

[lamford]

For a first offense, perhaps, but SB has been doing this for how many years now?

Unless the previous incidents were recorded, it is hard to take them into account.

[barmar]

Unless the previous incidents were recorded, it is hard to take them into account.

Luckily you've been faithfully recording them here....

[lamford]

Luckily you've been faithfully recording them here....

Hearsay evidence and inadmissible

[blackshoe]

Says what law?