Revoke by declarer

[661_Pete]

I have to admit to feeling just a little bit aggrieved at not having pounced on an opportunity here - but, both my partner and I having accepted the TD's ruling and the scores being done, dusted and published online, I'm not about to stir things up again. The club I play at isn't like that :rolleyes: .

 

I was West and North was in 5♣X here, after my partner and I had bid both majors: pairs MPs, Game all dealer W:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj753ht84d8cqjt96&w=sk9hqj953dqt975c3&n=s2h72daj32ck87542&e=saqt864hak6dk64ca]399|300[/hv]

As things stand 5♣X is an excellent sacrifice at game all, because I can't see how E-W can come to more than 4 tricks in the normal course of play - and there's a certain game for E-W in either major.

 

Well, we cashed our ♥ winners and declarer, after driving out the A♣, proceeded to cross-ruff his heart and diamond losers. In the course of this he led a spade from dummy and ruffed it (!) - this being the first spade trick played.

 

Finally, after playing off his trumps, he laid down the last spade from hand conceding the final trick. At this point both my partner and I spoke out. Declarer had obviously made an innocent mistake, he'd forgotten having led a spade earlier but I then faced all my cards to show where I'd followed to a spade earlier on. Was I right to do this before calling the TD?

 

Anyway, we called the TD at that point but by then dummy had shuffled her cards and was about to return them to the board. I'm not absolutely clear whether dummy did this before or after we'd drawn attention to the revoke. If after - surely this was an infraction by dummy, yes? Anyway, once the TD arrived, since dummy's cards had been shuffled, he said he couldn't definitely confirm where the revoke had occurred, so he asked us, would we accept the result as it stood, i.e. 2 down? But it was definitely not the penultimate trick.

 

Both my partner and I accepted, seeing as the revoke didn't actually affect the final outcome. Incidentally, we were the first to play this board, so I had no idea how we stood at the time.

 

It turned out that we had a 'bottom'. At every other table E-W bid and made game in ♠ or ♥. If there'd not been any irregularity, this would have been a fair result for us, due to an excellent bid by N-S.

 

But what about the possible revoke penalty?

 

I don't like gaining advantage from this sort of penalty, but as things stood, we were entitled (Law 64 A.1) to claim the revoke trick (which declarer won by ruffing) and one other, leading to 4 down and a certain 'top' (even 3 down would have been a top).

 

I'll put this down as 'lesson learnt'. But I think, next time I play, I'll ask that Laws be applied to the letter....

[pran]

I have to admit to feeling just a little bit aggrieved at not having pounced on an opportunity here - but, both my partner and I having accepted the TD's ruling and the scores being done, dusted and published online, I'm not about to stir things up again. The club I play at isn't like that :rolleyes: .

 

I was West and North was in 5♣X here, after my partner and I had bid both majors: pairs MPs, Game all dealer W:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj753ht84d8cqjt96&w=sk9hqj953dqt975c3&n=s2h72daj32ck87542&e=saqt864hak6dk64ca]399|300[/hv]

As things stand 5♣X is an excellent sacrifice at game all, because I can't see how E-W can come to more than 4 tricks in the normal course of play - and there's a certain game for E-W in either major.

 

Well, we cashed our ♥ winners and declarer, after driving out the A♣, proceeded to cross-ruff his heart and diamond losers. In the course of this he led a spade from dummy and ruffed it (!) - this being the first spade trick played.

 

Finally, after playing off his trumps, he laid down the last spade from hand conceding the final trick. At this point both my partner and I spoke out. Declarer had obviously made an innocent mistake, he'd forgotten having led a spade earlier but I then faced all my cards to show where I'd followed to a spade earlier on. Was I right to do this before calling the TD?

 

Anyway, we called the TD at that point but by then dummy had shuffled her cards and was about to return them to the board. I'm not absolutely clear whether dummy did this before or after we'd drawn attention to the revoke. If after - surely this was an infraction by dummy, yes? Anyway, once the TD arrived, since dummy's cards had been shuffled, he said he couldn't definitely confirm where the revoke had occurred, so he asked us, would we accept the result as it stood, i.e. 2 down? But it was definitely not the penultimate trick.

 

Both my partner and I accepted, seeing as the revoke didn't actually affect the final outcome. Incidentally, we were the first to play this board, so I had no idea how we stood at the time.

 

It turned out that we had a 'bottom'. At every other table E-W bid and made game in ♠ or ♥. If there'd not been any irregularity, this would have been a fair result for us, due to an excellent bid by N-S.

 

But what about the possible revoke penalty?

 

I don't like gaining advantage from this sort of penalty, but as things stood, we were entitled (Law 64 A.1) to claim the revoke trick (which declarer won by ruffing) and one other, leading to 4 down and a certain 'top' (even 3 down would have been a top).

 

I'll put this down as 'lesson learnt'. But I think, next time I play, I'll ask that Laws be applied to the letter....

The fact that Dummy had shuffled her cards is irrelevant (see Law 65D and also 79A) and any doubt about the play because of this shall be ruled in favour of the non-offending side.

 

The correct ruling here is to treat the board as played, i.e. with four tricks won by the defence (Two tricks in Hearts, the ♣A and the final trick). Then there is the established revoke by declarer who ruffed a spade instead of following suit. The adjustment for this revoke is according to Law 64A1: The revoke trick won by the revoking player plus one more trick are transferred to the non-offending side. So the final result shall be 5♣X-4 - 1100 to EW.

 

Straight forward ruling.

 

Edit: Law reference corrected to 65D

[pescetom]

I'll put this down as 'lesson learnt'.

Maybe there's another lesson to be learnt too - it's not good bridge to accept a 5♣x sacrifice when you have a comfortable 5♥, 5♠ or even 6NT B-)

[661_Pete]

Maybe there's another lesson to be learnt too - it's not good bridge to accept a 5♣x sacrifice when you have a comfortable 5♥, 5♠ or even 6NT B-)

Oh yes, my partner and I both realised that. Too late! No-one bid the slam: I wish someone had bid 6♥ or 6♠, both of which fail on a ♦ lead and ruff.

[blackshoe]

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

Note: Law 9B is headed "After attention is drawn to an irregularity".

 

I think Sven means 66D, not 69D (which doesn't exist).

[Tramticket]

Maybe there's another lesson to be learnt too - it's not good bridge to accept a 5♣x sacrifice when you have a comfortable 5♥, 5♠ or even 6NT B-)

 

You're taking a strange line, or using UI, if you make 6NT.

[pran]

Note: Law 9B is headed "After attention is drawn to an irregularity".

 

I think Sven means 66D, not 69D (which doesn't exist).

No - 65D !

Sorry for the misprint

[PeterAlan]

... The revoke trick won by the revoking player plus one more trick are transferred to the non-offending side.

In general, when the trick is won by the revoking player, it's that trick "together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side". Here, that side won a further trick so the point is not at issue.

[pran]

The revoke trick won by the revoking player plus one more trick are transferred to the non-offending side.

In general, when the trick is won by the revoking player, it's that trick "together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side". Here, that side won a further trick so the point is not at issue.

I don't understand your issue?

 

We arrive at precisely the same result, don't we?

 

(Except that we use slightly different words, I didn't bother for such a simple ruling to emphasize the in this case superfluous condition that the second trick to be transferred must have been won after the revoke by the revoking side).

[pescetom]

You're taking a strange line, or using UI, if you make 6NT.

 

I think you would need UI or a mistake both to bid and make 6NT.

But we would have bid to 5♥ even without a push from the opponents.

[steve2005]

65D player putting his cards together risks bring ruled against.

law 65d Agreement on Results of Play

A player should not disturb the order of his

played cards until agreement has been reached

on the number of tricks won. A player who

fails to comply with the provisions of this Law

jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of

doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.

[ddrankin]

More than a risk. See law 66D:

 

66D After the Conclusion of Play

 

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If the Director can no longer ascertain the facts after such a claim has been made, and only one side has mixed its cards, the Director shall rule in favor of the other side.

[Vampyr]

Does this club not own a lawbook?

[pran]

Does this club not own a lawbook?

That is the wrong question!

 

Do they know it?

[Vampyr]

That is the wrong question!

 

Do they know it?

 

You don’t need to “ know” it. You can read what it says.

[pran]

You don’t need to “ know” it. You can read what it says.

Do they know how to read it?

 

You would (i assume) be surprised how many times I have experienced people reading the laws like (as we say in Norway) Old Nick reads the Holy Bible.

[661_Pete]

As a postscript.

 

In today's session I felt, perhaps justifiably, aggrieved. I was involved in another revoke, but this time it was by my partner. Declarer was drawing trumps and my partner discarded when she still held one trump. She noticed the error as soon as the next trump was led, but it was too late, the revoke was established and declarer called the TD who imposed the 1-trick penalty on us, seeing as we still had tricks to win.

 

I could have kicked myself because declarer had opened a weak 2, which for most players in our club indicates six cards, but my partner's discard showed declarer having seven trumps, in which case he would probably have opened 3. So I should have been alive enough to ask partner "having none?" before the next trick was played.

 

The difference of one trick was enough to cost us one percentage point in the final rankings. Not a disaster but not welcome!

 

Oh well, if there's ever a revoke by the opponents in a future board, I shan't be lenient!

 

Does this club not own a lawbook?

Just noticed the above post. Yes our club certainly does, I have seen it on a side table. I believe every EBU-affiliated club has to have a lawbook available at every session. It is not always, however, that the TD brings along the book when called to a table. Perhaps he/she should.

 

In fact in today's revoke, the TD at first wanted to impose a 2-trick penalty on us (as per the old Law). I had to correct him (having read up the subject myself!). Luckily the TD then remembered the change in the Law, so I didn't end up arguing with him (the last thing I want!).

[axman]

As a postscript.

 

In today's session I felt, perhaps justifiably, aggrieved. I was involved in another revoke, but this time it was by my partner. Declarer was drawing trumps and my partner discarded when she still held one trump. She noticed the error as soon as the next trump was led, but it was too late, the revoke was established and declarer called the TD who imposed the 1-trick penalty on us, seeing as we still had tricks to win.

 

...

 

Oh well, if there's ever a revoke by the opponents in a future board, I shan't be lenient!

As described, pard can immediately call the TD upon which all action must stop. The revoke thus is not yet established. When the TD arrives he is told that on the previous trick a discard was made when having a card. At this point, the revoke must be corrected and the TD tells what to do. the critical point being that establishment occurs upon the offending side 'playing' to a subsequent trick.

[pran]

[.....]

In fact in today's revoke, the TD at first wanted to impose a 2-trick penalty on us (as per the old Law). I had to correct him (having read up the subject myself!). Luckily the TD then remembered the change in the Law, so I didn't end up arguing with him (the last thing I want!).

He must have used a rather old Law book?

 

Beginning in 1975 (maybe even earlier) there never was a 2-trick penalty for a revoke unless the revoking side won the actual revoke trick in addition to at least one later trick.

 

(There was a special Law in force between 1997 and 2007: If the revoking side did not win the revoke trick but the revoking player won a later trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick then the revoke penalty would still be 2 tricks provided that the revoking side in addition won at least one tricks beginning with the revoke trick. This hopelessly complicating law was fortunately abandoned again in 2007.)

[barmar]

I could have kicked myself because declarer had opened a weak 2, which for most players in our club indicates six cards, but my partner's discard showed declarer having seven trumps, in which case he would probably have opened 3. So I should have been alive enough to ask partner "having none?" before the next trick was played.

I think players are expected to be consistent about whether they ask "having none?". If you only do it when you're surprised by the discard, you might be giving information about your holding in the suit. That might not be the case in this incident, if you'd already shown out or were going to show out on this trick. But there are other situations where it could, so you should be careful.

 

I've never been able to get myself in the habit of asking "having none?", so I'm careful not to say anything when I see a surprising discard.