A convenient revoke

[sanst]

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

Why would he do that and what law permits him to do so? Het certainly isn’t allowed to tell the players that the nine of clubs has or hasn’t been played. What the TD can do at this point, is ask N to check his cards again for a club. If he hasn’t one, there might have been a revoke, that is established by now. So there’s no use checking the played cards, which can only give UI, something a TD must certainly avoid. After the play he returns and any TD knows what to do then. If not, read Blackshoe’s contribution (#8).

Actually, I don’t understand why this is discussed. It’s one of the most common irregularities, one that you are trained to handle in the very first course you take when training as TD, at least over here.

[mycroft]

"Yes there was a revoke a few tricks back." Sure, that's not news, but literally what does that get any player that doesn't get resolved if we check at the end of the hand?

 

However: "No, there wasn't a revoke." What does that get declarer, who is sure that someone still has the ♣9? Oh yes, it reminds him that it was in *his* hand and was played earlier. Or that it was pitched while pulling the 4-1 trump break that he was concentrating on counting to 13 on. Or ... The opponents were very happy when declarer had lost track of the cards. Now you've helped him catch back up.

 

The first nets nobody anything. The second *affects the play* - quite literally the same way that the players looking through the tricks for the revoke does. And you can't "confirm" the revoke without the chance that it turns out there is no revoke.

 

Frankly, even if declarer can't work out what happened, just being told "no, your memory of the hand so far is wrong" is *affecting the play* to the defenders' disadvantage.

 

I would be happy to assist with a potential revoke on the immediately previous trick to avoid it becoming established. But one that already is established? Much too dangerous, and disruptive. "Call me when the ♣9 shows up, or at the end of the hand and we can work it out. If there has been an established revoke, it's a one-trick penalty unless the revoker ruffed."

[blackshoe]

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

 

Would it end there for you?

What else would you like me to do?

[barmar]

I'm convinced. There's no point in trying to confirm at this point whether declarer is correct about the revoke. As blackshoe said, it's too late to make it an unestablished revoke. So you wait until the end of the hand, by which time the revoke will have been confirmed (since someone will have to play the ♣9), and then you apply the standard revoke correction.

 

However, the players should be cautioned not to distube the quitted tricks until the TD returns to adjudicate. He'll need to determine if the revoker won the trick on which they revoked, so that the appropriate number of tricks can be transferred. He also might need to award additional tricks to the NOS if the standard correction doesn't restore equity.

[blackshoe]

However, the players should be cautioned not to distube the quitted tricks until the TD returns to adjudicate.

Good thought. I estimate an 85% chance at least one of them will forget this caution by the time the hand is ended. :-)

[pescetom]

What else would you like me to do?

Consider possible intentionality and maybe recording the event, as previously discussed.

 

 

I'm convinced. There's no point in trying to confirm at this point whether declarer is correct about the revoke.

Me too, and thanks all for that.