Correction of a revoke

[pescetom]

Another lesson to be learned: when your partner doesn’t follow the suit led, ask whether he still has a card of that suit. Yes, you might have a mPC, but that’s much easier to deal with than this quite common mess.

Another lesson to be learned: if you revoke, don’t say a thing till the play is over. Make sure that all cards remain on the table without anyone messing with these, call the director and tell that you revoked. You’re not obliged to point out that you revoked, but it’s IMO the decent thing to do.

 

That's impeccable in terms of Law, but I don't much like it in terms of ethics except for never not calling the Director. I only ask partner if I strongly suspect he revoked, not merely to check (which can irritate opponents and provide UI). And I would always point out my revoke if it is not yet established: it is my right not to do so, and quite possibly advantageous to my side, but again not the decent thing to do.

I find it healthy to bear in mind that all such nonsense is only possible because we are not playing electronically.

[pescetom]

Sorry for lack of accuracy.

 

 

I was East and I just wonder what should have been done

 

Time frame after West picked up 9♣ turned it over as played, placed 7i♦n hand and played trump to trick and calling director I am not sure about.

Know director arrived after all on the above.

 

Believe director was called before West trumped trick3

 

I know all happened before director arrived.

 

 

Thank you for coming back to clarify.

As I understand, nobody drew attention to the revoke by West on second trick and you, East, led ♣6 to the third trick.

Then at his turn West located ♦7 among his quitted tricks, substituted it with ♣9 which you saw, and played a trump.

Director was called by NS at some point after your lead and before any next lead.

 

Is this correct?

[dickiegera]

Thank you for coming back to clarify.

As I understand, nobody drew attention to the revoke by West on second trick and you, East, led ♣6 to the third trick.

Then at his turn West located ♦7 among his quitted tricks, substituted it with ♣9 which you saw, and played a trump.

Director was called by NS at some point after your lead and before any next lead.

 

Is this correct?

 

 

Yes

[dickiegera]

Yes

 

 

Question Is dummy allowed to call director at this point OR must it be E,W, or declarer?

[blackshoe]

Until attention is called to an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call the director except, or so I was told by somebody at rulings@acbl.org, in case of a Zero Tolerance violation. It seems like dummy should not be calling the director here. Did anyone (not dummy) remark on West's unusual action in pulling a card out of his quitted tricks? That would have opened the door for dummy to call the TD.

 

Was this the first three tricks, ♣A from East, ♣K from East, on which West revoked, ♣6 from East, at which point West pulled the ♦7 out of his quitted tricks, replacing it with the ♣9, and then trumped the ♣6 lead? If so, I think I'm giving West a procedural penalty of something like 3000% of a top. :ph34r:

 

I suspect Law 64C might come into play here, resulting in a score adjustment instead of the revoke penalty, but I can't tell that without seeing all four hands and the bidding.

[sanst]

Srry, I missed the part of W trumping ♣6.

 

With the clarification I would decide that:

• ♦7 is played in trick 2 and goes back to the quitted cards,
  
• both ♣9 and the trump that W showed and played in trick 3 are MPC’s,
  
• in trick 3 W should the ♣9,
  
• N is told what his rights are in connection to the MPC, and E is told the part about AI/UI from the MPC,
  
• one trick is transferred to NS.
  

Afterwards the TD checks a possible disadvantage for NS and, at least I would, tells W never to make such a mess again on penalty of being flogged and, if not sufficiently demure, gives both a PP (error in procedure) and a DP (to maintain order and discipline) :D

Without more information about the hands and the play, it’s impossible to say for sure, but I think NS aren’t damaged. W didn’t trump the third club and one trick extra is transferred to NS.

[sanst]

That's impeccable in terms of Law, but I don't much like it in terms of ethics except for never not calling the Director. I only ask partner if I strongly suspect he revoked, not merely to check (which can irritate opponents and provide UI). And I would always point out my revoke if it is not yet established: it is my right not to do so, and quite possibly advantageous to my side, but again not the decent thing to do.

I find it healthy to bear in mind that all such nonsense is only possible because we are not playing electronically.

I don’t see what’s unethical about asking about a possible revoke, as long as you do it standard. I do, because my partner has problems to keep her cards firmly in her hand and is always fumbling when she has to play. That’s the price to pay for old age, I’m afraid. Anyway, it’s certainly better than let the revoke become established, even more so if you leave it to opponents to draw attention to it.

[mycroft]

I would think in fact that "always doing it the first showout" - yes, even if the kibitzers that didn't hear the auction can count to 13 - passes less UI than only doing so when surprised (which does in fact pass a *lot* of UI, and was the reason for the old RoWorld L61 that treated a defensive correction after partner's query with the same penalty as an established revoke.[*])

 

It's just *incredibly* irritating, no matter which side of the table it's on. And the distraction it causes when my partner is one of those 100% costs me more tricks in a month than established revokes cost me in a year, so I request they not do it. And I live with the huge amount of UI transmitted when I do do a "you sure about that, pard?" and the answer is "why yes, I do have a lot of those. Thanks for letting your partner know." rather than "oh, that was a spade? Sorry..."

 

[*]Once again, a crutch that Certain Players used (to protect their clients, perhaps?) that "was so unfair" they couldn't use, even after their NPC/coach reminded them that "in this event, you can't do that" with big red letters in bold (they did, right? That's kind of one of the main jobs of an NPC - ensure the team knows the special rules?) got lobbied against, and magically the WBF decided it wasn't as big an issue as they thought. They may even be right.

[dickiegera]

Until attention is called to an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call the director except, or so I was told by somebody at rulings@acbl.org, in case of a Zero Tolerance violation. It seems like dummy should not be calling the director here. Did anyone (not dummy) remark on West's unusual action in pulling a card out of his quitted tricks? That would have opened the door for dummy to call the TD.

 

Was this the first three tricks, ♣A from East, ♣K from East, on which West revoked, ♣6 from East, at which point West pulled the ♦7 out of his quitted tricks, replacing it with the ♣9, and then trumped the ♣6 lead? If so, I think I'm giving West a procedural penalty of something like 3000% of a top. :ph34r:

 

I suspect Law 64C might come into play here, resulting in a score adjustment instead of the revoke penalty, but I can't tell that without seeing all four hands and the bidding.

I don't have the biding .

They were bidding hearts and clubs [that is the reason I knew to lead A clubs ] We were bidding diamonds

 

Contract was 4 hearts These were the first 3 tricks. Only tricks we were intitled to were A&K clubs and a[diamond [opponets had sing diamonds

 

and a club ruff if taken early

 

 

Thanks again

[pescetom]

I would think in fact that "always doing it the first showout" - yes, even if the kibitzers that didn't hear the auction can count to 13 - passes less UI than only doing so when surprised (which does in fact pass a *lot* of UI, and was the reason for the old RoWorld L61 that treated a defensive correction after partner's query with the same penalty as an established revoke.[*])

 

It's just *incredibly* irritating, no matter which side of the table it's on. And the distraction it causes when my partner is one of those 100% costs me more tricks in a month than established revokes cost me in a year, so I request they not do it. And I live with the huge amount of UI transmitted when I do do a "you sure about that, pard?" and the answer is "why yes, I do have a lot of those. Thanks for letting your partner know." rather than "oh, that was a spade? Sorry..."

My "surprised" was a diplomatic euphemism for "much more likely a revoke than a highly unlikely distribution or a counting error on my part".

But you may well be right, fortunately I have never had to face this as either a player or Director.

Nobody here would dream of asking partner (and only rarely opponent).

[pescetom]

I don’t see what’s unethical about asking about a possible revoke, as long as you do it standard. I do, because my partner has problems to keep her cards firmly in her hand and is always fumbling when she has to play. That’s the price to pay for old age, I’m afraid. Anyway, it’s certainly better than let the revoke become established, even more so if you leave it to opponents to draw attention to it.

 

Just so long as she doesn't use a card holder and take shameless advantage to show shape :)

[pescetom]

Question Is dummy allowed to call director at this point OR must it be E,W, or declarer?

Dummy is not allowed to call Director.

But if I was in your shoes, after partner's antics I would be calling the Director myself, not looking for some technicality to avoid redress of score and any due punishment.

In any case Declarer too had witnessed West's antics (whatever West may or may not have said to explain them) and was bound to call Director.

 

 

Srry, I missed the part of W trumping ♣6.

 

With the clarification I would decide that:

• ♦7 is played in trick 2 and goes back to the quitted cards,
  
• both ♣9 and the trump that W showed and played in trick 3 are MPC’s,
  
• in trick 3 W should the ♣9,
  
• N is told what his rights are in connection to the MPC, and E is told the part about AI/UI from the MPC,
  
• one trick is transferred to NS.
  

Afterwards the TD checks a possible disadvantage for NS and, at least I would, tells W never to make such a mess again on penalty of being flogged and, if not sufficiently demure, gives both a PP (error in procedure) and a DP (to maintain order and discipline) :D

Without more information about the hands and the play, it’s impossible to say for sure, but I think NS aren’t damaged. W didn’t trump the third club and one trick extra is transferred to NS.

I agree about actions versus West, but think you are magnanimous about tricks.

For now it looks like we transfer 1 trick for the revoke trick won and 1 trick for the successive diamonds trick won, then check that this was not insufficient compensation if NS so retain.

[sanst]

I agree about actions versus West, but think you are magnanimous about tricks.

For now it looks like we transfer 1 trick for the revoke trick won and 1 trick for the successive diamonds trick won, then check that this was not insufficient compensation if NS so retain.

E expected W to win the third clubs trick by trumping, but W has to play ♣9. That makes it more than likely that NS win this trick, which would without the revoke been lost to EW. Whatever happened afterward is impossible to know for us. That the TD should check that NS are compensated sufficiently, is obvious.

[pescetom]

Whatever happened afterward is impossible to know for us.

The clarification by author of OP says that EW have a diamonds trick, which must be successive to the revoke.

Assuming that NS were unable to pitch diamonds, of course, but TD will know what happened in any case.

[sanst]

That's impeccable in terms of Law, but I don't much like it in terms of ethics except for never not calling the Director. I only ask partner if I strongly suspect he revoked, not merely to check (which can irritate opponents and provide UI). And I would always point out my revoke if it is not yet established: it is my right not to do so, and quite possibly advantageous to my side, but again not the decent thing to do.

I find it healthy to bear in mind that all such nonsense is only possible because we are not playing electronically.

Coming back to this point: I still don't know what can possibly be not ethical about playing according to the Laws. As I wrote, I don"t think it's a decent thing to do to revoke and hope for the best, not calling the director afterwards, but it's legal according to the Laws and I wouldn't call it unethical. But one one hand English is not my native language, on the other ethical or unethical is subjective, it's 'in the eye of the beholder'.

May I recall the Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, as published by the WBFLC. About Law 61B3 Ton Kooijman, chairman of that august body, wrote:

The controversy created by an earlier version of the code where the Regulating Authority could prohibit defenders from asking each other whether they had revoked has been removed. The laws now say that players are allowed to ask. The laws still mention the possibility of creating UI by asking partner, but normally this will not be the case. An example where it would be UI is when the purpose of the question is not to avoid a revoke, but to draw attention to an unexpected situation with an opponent still holding cards in that suit. If players ask routinely, it is hard to imagine UI being transmitted. If they ask rarely, or if the tone of the question indicates surprise, then there will be UI.

AFAIK the purpose of this law is to limit the problems arising from an established revoke. Revokes are often problematic for the less experienced director, which led to the introduction of the prescribed transfer of one or two tricks.

PS, some posts before this I wrote that the card mistakenly played when revoking, is a mPC, where it should have been MPC.

[PeterAlan]

Until attention is called to an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call the director except, or so I was told by somebody at rulings@acbl.org, in case of a Zero Tolerance violation. It seems like dummy should not be calling the director here. Did anyone (not dummy) remark on West's unusual action in pulling a card out of his quitted tricks? That would have opened the door for dummy to call the TD.

Indeed - as we've already noted, the revoke was not the only irregularity here.

 

But I don't see a problem with dummy calling the TD. There's more than one way to 'draw attention'. Even if whole charade had been played out in silence (and I would have expected either W to have said "Sorry, I revoked" or N or E to have said "What's going on?"), W's actions alone draw attention to his revoke, as well as to his violation of the quitted tricks law.

[blackshoe]

Indeed - as we've already noted, the revoke was not the only irregularity here.

 

But I don't see a problem with dummy calling the TD. There's more than one way to 'draw attention'. Even if whole charade had been played out in silence (and I would have expected either W to have said "Sorry, I revoked" or N or E to have said "What's going on?"), W's actions alone draw attention to his revoke, as well as to his violation of the quitted tricks law.

Perhaps so, but I'm not certain that's the case. It seems like an argument that any irregularity automatically draws attention to itself.

[PeterAlan]

Perhaps so, but I'm not certain that's the case. It seems like an argument that any irregularity automatically draws attention to itself.

I see your point, and I might agree over the quitted tricks point (and to a play out of turn; we're really concerned with irregularities during the play period). But the circumstances of most revokes don't draw attention to themselves; they typically go un-noted at the time.

 

Here, however, the action of subsequently replacing a revoke card by a card of the revoked-on suit surely draws attention to the revoke itself: bear in mind that a revoke is defined in Law 61A as the "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 (etc)", ie it is just that failure that constitutes the revoke, and W's subsequent actions draw attention to his earlier failure.

[blackshoe]

Would you then, as dummy, feel secure in calling the director?

[PeterAlan]

Would you then, as dummy, feel secure in calling the director?

Let's approach it this way. If I, as TD, was called by dummy and W objected to this as violating 43A1(a), then I'd reply "You've drawn attention to your revoke by your subsequent actions." As dummy, I'd call the TD and be prepared to say this if asked why I'd done so: it's the TD's call as to whether (s)he accepts this interpretation.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough. B-)

[pescetom]

Let's approach it this way. If I, as TD, was called by dummy and W objected to this as violating 43A1(a), then I'd reply "You've drawn attention to your revoke by your subsequent actions." As dummy, I'd call the TD and be prepared to say this if asked why I'd done so: it's the TD's call as to whether (s)he accepts this interpretation.

As previously implied, I would reply that Declarer cannot have failed to understand that West has revoked and messed with his quitted cards, even if it was improper for Dummy to call me.