[Janix2]

Hi everyone

My first post and I've come for some help - no doubt I'll be playing lots of Bridge as well now that I'm registered. Was a most active player until I got married and then my children were born - some 18 years ago - but have now started playing the physical version again with a friend.

Anyway, down to the problem.

I was playing out a hand at a local club (duplicate session), accepting that I was about to go two off in 3NT - we were already one off losing the first five tricks. Almost everyone had bid it but the distribution / layout / opening lead meant that the contract was always doomed - apart from the lucky few who didn't get the [obvious] lead against them).

Therefore, I wasn't fully concentrating on counting the cards as normal, rather just going through the motions in case something fortuitous happened (accidental squeeze, poor discards by defenders, etc., and not counting on a revoke, of course!). I was in hand with four cards to go, and on the fifth last card, my RHO discarded (Club) instead of following (Spade), and the LHO also showed out on this trick.

Wow - I thought - my little 2S was now good (fourth from a holding of A,K,J,2) and as dummy had had two Spades - then if both opponents had had four / three distribution between them, then there only had had to be one discard at some point and the 2S was good in any event.

Therefore, on the next trick instead of crossing to Dummy, taking three of the last four tricks, I led the 2S and of course, RHO won!

I called the Director immediately after RHO produced the Spade, and the RHO showed the Director that he would then win all the remaining tricks bar one (RHO had one further Spade, two top Hearts, and then his remaining Club would be overtaken in Dummy). I stated that had I known that RHO had another Spade, I would have played the original way but chose to change my play solely on this new information received.

What is the correct penalty in these circumstances? Thanks.

[Vampyr]

Naturally you can never make the contract since none of the first five tricks can be transferred.

As far as the last tricks are concerned, one trick isn't going to compensate you for the several tricks you have lost because of the changed line of play. So actually you get no penalty tricks, only the number you would have won if the revoke hadn't taken place.

[ggwhiz]

The rule for the number of tricks you would normally be rewarded has a disclaimer at the end along the lines of "the Director may award any number of tricks should the prescribed penalty be deemed insufficient."

Many club Directors don't deal with these things often enough to remember everything. A modest knowledge of the laws is a players best defence so that you can remind them.

[jh51]

Even experienced directors may need to be made aware of the facts on a particular hand. In a regional KO an opponent ruffed a trick that we otherwise would have run. In the subsequent play, he was able to discard the remaing cards in that suit from dummy. He then ruffed one of the cards he still held in the suit in dummy. Absent the revoke, it could be shown that we would have taken 3 additional tricks, not the 2 provided by the penalty. His initial ruling was a 2 trick penalty, but I objected as this did not restore equity. The director is not necessarily aware of all the facts on a given hand and unless you make him aware he will rule based upon the facts he does know.

[blackshoe]

The revoke has been established, in fact was established when your LHO played to your ♠2 (Law 63A1). It may not be corrected (Law 63B). Per Law 64A2, one trick (of the remaining tricks apparently all to be won by the offending side) would be transferred back to you. However, this does not restore your equity, that being the number of tricks you could have made absent the revoke. In such cases, Law 64C applies: When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. (Emphasis mine). So if you were destined to go two off, the TD should adjust the score to 3NT down 2.

You can always ask the director to read the relevant laws from the book. Although I did have a director once decline to do that on the grounds that "I left my law book in the car".

[Janix2]

Thankyou for your prompt and considered responses.

So if I hadn't been 'greedy' and played the last few cards the way I had intended then I would have gone two off, adjusted to one off with the award of a one trick penalty.

If, theoretically, I was always going to win the last four tricks then the result would be 3NT made, from down one.

[Vampyr]

Janix2, on 2011-July-21, 16:08, said:

Thankyou for your prompt and considered responses.

So if I hadn't been 'greedy' and played the last few cards the way I had intended then I would have gone two off, adjusted to one off with the award of a one trick penalty.

If, theoretically, I was always going to win the last four tricks then the result would be 3NT made, from down one.

You lost the first five tricks. How do you figure you can make 3NT after that start?

[semeai]

Janix2, on 2011-July-21, 16:08, said:

Thankyou for your prompt and considered responses.

So if I hadn't been 'greedy' and played the last few cards the way I had intended then I would have gone two off, adjusted to one off with the award of a one trick penalty.

If, theoretically, I was always going to win the last four tricks then the result would be 3NT made, from down one.

No, you either get the one trick penalty or you get an adjusted score (if the one trick was not enough compensation), not both.

[Vampyr]

semeai, on 2011-July-22, 06:41, said:

No, you either get the one trick penalty or you get an adjusted score (if the one trick was not enough compensation), not both.

But perhaps more importantly, OP has misunderstood about transferred tricks -- the fact that he can never get a trick that was won by OPPs before they revoked.

[blackshoe]

The table result was 3NT down 5. Since there was a revoke, per Law 64A2 one trick would be transferred, for a result of 3NT down 4. However, had the revoke not occurred, the result would have been 3NT down 2, so per Law 64C the director assigns an adjusted score, which assignment is made in accordance with Law 12. The final result of all this is an assigned adjusted score of 3NT down 2. Once the TD arrives at Law 64C, the "revoke penalty" of Law 64A is lost; the only concern is the difference between the score including the penalty and the declarer's original equity in the contract.

It may occur in some circumstances that the revoke penalty results in a score equal to or better (for the NOS) than the expected equity. In such cases, Law 64C doesn't apply, so Law 64A is applied, and that's the end of it. This current one though is not such a circumstance.

It would be good if one of the moderators of this forum would move this thread to "Simple Rulings".

[Janix2]

Thanks once again for the further explanations, especially that I can't have two bites of the cherry. The lesson I have learned is that I should always concentrate and having accidentally attempted to profit from another's misfortune I paid the price.

In hindsight it should have been obvious to me that there was at least one more Spade out and I should have spotted this immediately - before I established the revoke.

Either way, the the 'fair' result would have been 3NT down one.

Before posting, I looked at the Boards to find one called 'Revokes' without success. I didn't spot the one called 'Simple Rules', however, and in any event, I am not sure that revokes fall into this category!

[blackshoe]

Revoke situations are generally appropriate for "Simple Rulings" because the ruling is pretty much a mechanical application of the law. Rulings that require TD judgement — those involving whether unauthorized information was present, what it may have suggested, and so on, for example — are a bit more complicated.

If we had a forum for every possible irregularity, we'd have one heck of a lot of forums!

[barmar]

Janix2, on 2011-July-22, 23:14, said:

Before posting, I looked at the Boards to find one called 'Revokes' without success. I didn't spot the one called 'Simple Rules', however, and in any event, I am not sure that revokes fall into this category!

There are two forums for discussion of rulings: "Laws and Rulings" and "Simple Rulings". If you don't think the question is simple enough for the second forum, then it belongs in the first one.

[Janix2]

OK I'll come clean...

I didn't scroll down beyond "Off topic" when exploring your site for the first time.

And, given the importance of Laws and Ethics in Bridge, then I didn't expect this topic area to rank lower (pun intended), although I have to say I was confused in that I thought that "mistakes" were a thing of the past!

P.S. If a mod moves this topic to its rtghtful home, please could they correct my accidental spelling mistake in the topic header. Thanks.

[barmar]

I suspect the reason it's way down there is mostly historical. Those forums used to be hosted elsewhere, they were added here a couple of years ago. So they were just added at the end of the forum list. I doubt there was any intent to rank them lower in importance.

[blackshoe]

I certainly hope not!