A convenient revoke

[pescetom]

MP pairs, F2F.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st7ht863daq62ca97&w=sj95hq42dkckqj632&n=saq82hj7dj754ct85&e=sk643hak95dt983c4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1d(4%2B)p2c(FG)p3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

NS are very experienced players and a regular partnership.

 

S leads ♥3 to 4 J K.

Declarer plays ♣4 to 7 K 5 and continues ♣Q followed by 8, discarding spades.

S covers with ♣A and returns ♥T, covered in dummy with Q which holds.

Declarer plays ♣J from dummy followed by T and discards spades, S discarding diamonds.

Declarer continues ♣6 from dummy and N discards diamonds, at which point Director is called because ♣9 has not appeared.

How do you proceed and what is your decision?

[Cyberyeti]

Unless the law has changed you restore equity. 9 tricks.

[blackshoe]

Well, the first thing I'd do is ask NS which one of them revoked.

[pescetom]

Well, the first thing I'd do is ask NS which one of them revoked.

S explains that he had the third club hidden among his cards and failed to spot it.

[axman]

Well, the first thing I'd do is ask NS which one of them revoked.

Just had to read TFLB. As expected, once someone does not follow suit you may ask forever about holding a card of the suit as long as you are not dummy. Seems though that when he says yes he may not know to which year you are referring.

[pescetom]

Unless the law has changed you restore equity. 9 tricks.

 

Well you skipped a few steps but I agree with your conclusion, a one trick transfer will be insufficient compensation and 9 tricks looks likely unless someone does something inappropriate for this level.

 

Is that all you would do as TD? Would you be happy with this (lucky top aside) if they were your opponents?

[pescetom]

Just had to read TFLB. As expected, once someone does not follow suit you may ask forever about holding a card of the suit as long as you are not dummy.

 

Even dummy can ask Declarer. But habitual or pointed asking seems to be an american thing, asking is rare over here and I have never seen it abused.

 

I think it's more of an issue that one can legally remain silent about a known revoke. North here is good enough to spot the revoke when his partner shows out, before it is established (if it was his partner who revoked, as seems likely).

[blackshoe]

I don't think North has done anything wrong, even if he correctly figures that his partner may have revoked. Law 61 allows but does not require him to ask. South has, at least up to the point where the director was called, done nothing wrong. Well, he revoked, but according to his later testimony he wasn't aware of it at the time.

 

The question asked in the OP was "how do you proceed and what is your decision?"

 

At this point in the play the revoke, if there was one, has been established (it will have occurred on trick 4 or 5 if I counted right, so when North plays to trick 6, that establishes any prior revoke by his side (if it wasn't already established) (Law 63A1). I would instruct that the play continue, because once the revoke is established it cannot be corrected (Law 63B). At the end of the play, there would be an automatic one-trick transfer (Law 64A2) but as has been said, this does not sufficiently compensate the declaring side, so I would assign an adjusted score. 3NT making 3 looks right (Law 64C1).

[pescetom]

I don't think North has done anything wrong, even if he correctly figures that his partner may have revoked. Law 61 allows but does not require him to ask. South has, at least up to the point where the director was called, done nothing wrong. Well, he revoked, but according to his later testimony he wasn't aware of it at the time.

 

The question asked in the OP was "how do you proceed and what is your decision?"

 

At this point in the play the revoke, if there was one, has been established (it will have occurred on trick 4 or 5 if I counted right, so when North plays to trick 6, that establishes any prior revoke by his side (if it wasn't already established) (Law 63A1). I would instruct that the play continue, because once the revoke is established it cannot be corrected (Law 63B). At the end of the play, there would be an automatic one-trick transfer (Law 64A2) but as has been said, this does not sufficiently compensate the declaring side, so I would assign an adjusted score. 3NT making 3 looks right (Law 64C1).

 

I agree 100%, although I don't like that aspect of Law 61.

 

Would it end there for you?

[axman]

Just had to read TFLB. As expected, once someone does not follow suit you may ask forever about holding a card of the suit as long as you are not dummy. Seems though that when he says yes he may not know to which year you are referring.

 

Who called?

 

How may I help?

Someone revoked.

How do you know?

Both showed out and the C9 has not been played.

Then how do you know there was a revoke if the C9 has not been played?

Well, it hasn't.

I'll put it differently, has someone shown out of clubs and then played a club?

No.

Then how do you know there has been a revoke?

You can look.

I'm not going to look without cause to look and I don't have cause.

Well, I say there was a revoke.

I see no proof.

You’re an ass.

Maybe a different approach is in order. Who has said they have a club after showing out?

Nobody.

 

That's good because if he said he had a club then he would have to play it and probably get in trouble. Now, a player who had an opponent that at sometime did not follow suit can ask if he has a card of a suit led. And the player is obliged to respond truthfully. And if the truthful answer is yes he must play the card and doing so he will probably be in trouble. And if he does not respond truthfully he will be in trouble. The law provides this right only to the players, not anyone else.

 

So, continue the board and should a problem arise like an appearance of a mysterious club please call me back.

[sfi]

Would it end there for you?

Hanlon's razor is a useful principle to apply here. Most likely you will already know about it if South is wont to do something shady in this sort of position. In those situations you have Law 72B, but I would only apply that with very strong supporting evidence. Even if I had some evidence or suspicion, I would generally be mentioning it to a recorder rather than adding a penalty. So 3NT= would be the end of the ruling.

[barmar]

I don't understand the TD's claim "I see no proof". Either there has been a revoke or the board is fouled. This should be cause for looking at the players' hands, to determine which is true.

[pescetom]

I don't understand the TD's claim "I see no proof". Either there has been a revoke or the board is fouled. This should be cause for looking at the players' hands, to determine which is true.

I agree that the "no proof" TD is making things unnecessarily complicated when called to a table with a clear narrative that indicates an infraction.

Initially he can look at the hand diagram, at which point what has probably happened (revoke by S on third round of clubs) is pretty obvious.

He can verify that (he is not a player) by questioning S and by inspecting quitted tricks if necessary.

I was taught that actually looking at the cards in a player's hand is to be avoided whenever possible, but if there is no other option he can do that too.

[pescetom]

Hanlon's razor is a useful principle to apply here. Most likely you will already know about it if South is wont to do something shady in this sort of position. In those situations you have Law 72B, but I would only apply that with very strong supporting evidence. Even if I had some evidence or suspicion, I would generally be mentioning it to a recorder rather than adding a penalty. So 3NT= would be the end of the ruling.

 

That was exactly the line I was asking people to draw, thank you.

I decided the same - it is suspicious and worthy of recording but not damning in its own right - but wanted to hear other points of view.

As a player I do find it frustrating that such antics will almost always go unpunished due to lack of supporting evidence.

Another part of the problem is that 72B1 is a 'must not' and so requires severe punishment, probably more than a deliberate revoke should warrant (I can imagine somebody committing it more for amusement than in the hope of gaining through player or director error).

[sfi]

Another part of the problem is that 72B1 is a 'must not' and so requires severe punishment [...]

Yeah, but the critical word in that law is "intentionally", and I would want pretty good evidence it was intentional before applying it. On the other hand, if I overheard South joking about it to their partner then I would be adding a sizeable penalty and taking further action. I think the director isn't really in a position to have a sense of humour about these things and should stop that sort of behaviour quickly.

[axman]

I don't understand the TD's claim "I see no proof". Either there has been a revoke or the board is fouled. This should be cause for looking at the players' hands, to determine which is true.

 

When a player says they have a card they must play it forthwith. When not at their turn it is an irregularity, when it doesn't follow suit when able it is an irregularity- irregularities that carry stiff punishments. It is improper for the TD to cause players to commit irregularities.

 

A player accuses another of having a card. If he has proof the TD must act. Without proof the TD must not act as his proving one way or another improperly gives information (when) the opponents are not entitled to. The proof must come from the players- ostensibly by producing the card. Cards are produced by playing them.

 

The way to force the correction of a revoke is to get proof by asking... proof is to ask a player that has just now failed to follow suit. If the answer is no then there is no compulsion to produce the obnoxious card; if yes, the law compels correcting the revoke so the acknowledgement yes does no harm (it not being too late to correct a revoke).

 

But the law is constructed to impose harm. 61B1 states:

 

Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.

 

A player that has played more than a hand or two has failed to follow suit. Thus, having failed to follow suit yesterday, or last year, or last decade the law provides declarer the right today to ask.

 

So, while the question applies to the case of the current trick, it also ascribes to leads of past tricks (including past events)

 

I agree that the "no proof" TD is making things unnecessarily complicated when called to a table with a clear narrative that indicates an infraction.

Initially he can look at the hand diagram, at which point what has probably happened (revoke by S on third round of clubs) is pretty obvious.

He can verify that (he is not a player) by questioning S and by inspecting quitted tricks if necessary.

I was taught that actually looking at the cards in a player's hand is to be avoided whenever possible, but if there is no other option he can do that too.

 

People have the knack of sometimes remembering things that did not happen. The proof is seeing the card. 1. revoker playing it, say to a trick 2. revoker saying it (requiring the play) perhaps in response to the question of a player (not TD)

 

 

Remedying irregularities is a complicated business. The necessary view in correcting a revoke is that only revoker may draw attention, and, revoker's LHO until LHO plays subsequent the showing out. Otherwise the compulsion to play a card regardless of the player's turn (who says he has the card) may compel penalties upon him (a wrong headed remedy). But the law does not so restrict the drawing attention.

[mycroft]

"Okay, if nobody at the table has the ♣9, continue play. If it shows up before the end, call me at the end of the hand and we'll deal with it then. If it doesn't show up before the end, and everybody played to every trick, then it just might have been played beforehand and you didn't notice. If it doesn't show up before the end and someone's a card short, call me then and we'll figure it out. Or you could check now to see if everybody has [counts dummy] X cards."

 

But somebody has to have it! Well, yes. Not the first time it was dummy, or declarer for that matter. Not the first time declarer didn't notice the colour coup pulling trump, or "oh yeah, they led it trick 1". [Edit: and the opponents 100% don't have to remind declarer of any of that, and I would hope dummy wouldn't either.]

[blackshoe]

I agree 100%, although I don't like that aspect of Law 61.

 

Would it end there for you?

Absent new relevant evidence, I think so.

[barmar]

People have the knack of sometimes remembering things that did not happen. The proof is seeing the card. 1. revoker playing it, say to a trick 2. revoker saying it (requiring the play) perhaps in response to the question of a player (not TD)

The TD can examine the quitted tricks to see if it has been played.

[mycroft]

Yes, the TD can, but should not, until play has ended. (Okay, they can look at the back side of the quitted tricks to ensure there wasn't a fifth card played or a stuck card, but they could check current cards in hand instead.)

 

The reason for this is the same as the reason why the opponents don't have to and should not remind declarer about the previous play, and why dummy shouldn't be showing declarer their card after it is quitted to "prove" that she is on the board/in hand. The director certainly shouldn't be assisting declarer with her memory. This is also why, if called for an established revoke, the director will not ask for it to be proven before the end of the hand (and this director gets very upset when he gets to a table with the last 3 tricks turned face up. Sure, you found the revoke this time, but what if there wasn't one, declarer just wanted to see the last three tricks?)

[pescetom]

Yes, the TD can, but should not, until play has ended. (Okay, they can look at the back side of the quitted tricks to ensure there wasn't a fifth card played or a stuck card, but they could check current cards in hand instead.)

 

The reason for this is the same as the reason why the opponents don't have to and should not remind declarer about the previous play, and why dummy shouldn't be showing declarer their card after it is quitted to "prove" that she is on the board/in hand. The director certainly shouldn't be assisting declarer with her memory. This is also why, if called for an established revoke, the director will not ask for it to be proven before the end of the hand (and this director gets very upset when he gets to a table with the last 3 tricks turned face up. Sure, you found the revoke this time, but what if there wasn't one, declarer just wanted to see the last three tricks?)

It is quite feasible for director to peek at the down side of quitted tricks with nobody but the owner of those cards able to share the view, at least with our current large tables.

[axman]

It is quite feasible for director to peek at the down side of quitted tricks with nobody but the owner of those cards able to share the view, at least with our current large tables.

When there is no TD ruling that may be done is it proper for the TD to unnecessarily delay play? No. Players that unnecessarily delay play should be penalized. What penalty must the TD pay when he does it?

[mycroft]

But the point is not that it can be done, but that the information discovered can not be divulged before the end of the hand without prejudicing one pair or the other. And also, there is no reason to know - the Laws handle all situations that could have occurred (granted, some better than others). So why do it?

 

There are many people who, after I give the "there is Unauthorized Information here, partner may not make a call based on that information if there's another reasonable call" spiel, wait until partner bids and then look at me to see if it's all okay. "I'm not going to look into her hand and tell you 'yeah, she's got her bid.'" (never mind that that is a Judgement ruling that shouldn't be done at the table). They usually realize pretty quickly that yeah, that wouldn't be fair.

[pescetom]

But the point is not that it can be done, but that the information discovered can not be divulged before the end of the hand without prejudicing one pair or the other. And also, there is no reason to know - the Laws handle all situations that could have occurred (granted, some better than others). So why do it?

 

There are many people who, after I give the "there is Unauthorized Information here, partner may not make a call based on that information if there's another reasonable call" spiel, wait until partner bids and then look at me to see if it's all okay. "I'm not going to look into her hand and tell you 'yeah, she's got her bid.'" (never mind that that is a Judgement ruling that shouldn't be done at the table). They usually realize pretty quickly that yeah, that wouldn't be fair.

I agree on the second point (of course), remain perplexed on the first.

If I discovered (in a few seconds, axman, less than it takes to explain anything to the players) that South had indeed revoked on the third round of the suit, why can I not divulge that without prejudicing one pair of the other (which?).

[axman]

I agree on the second point (of course), remain perplexed on the first.

If I discovered (in a few seconds, axman, less than it takes to explain anything to the players) that South had indeed revoked on the third round of the suit, why can I not divulge that without prejudicing one pair of the other (which?).

Who plays cards? Players. Who does not play cards? TD.

 

L45A Each PLAYER except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the

table immediately before him.

 

The location of non-faced cards is found out *******WHEN******* they are played. The TD fumbling around searching for yet to be played cards Causes the location of cards to be known by improper means. Therefore it is improper for the TD to do so (in the middle of the hand).