Help
Hearts are trump.
In trick 3 a club is led from dummy, RHO who is void in clubs ruffs and declarer overruffs. (LHO followed suit with a club.)
Declarer now pulls trumps (neither defender is void), and the play completes with nothing special happening until declarer in trick 10 produces a club from his own hand.
TD is called to handle the revoke, but declarer denies that he has revoked: "I called a trump from dummy in trick 3 and simply finessed over RHO".
This statement is confirmed by kibitzers, even TD himself had noticed at the time that declarer called a trump from dummy to trick 3. (Of course nobody called attention to this irregularity so long as none of the players did, that would have been a severe interference). However, when the quitted tricks are examined a club is indeed found as the third card played from dummy.
So how do you rule? Revoke? By whom?
And specifically: Do you modify trick 3 in any way, and if so how do you modify the rest of the tricks from trick 4 through trick 10?
Page 1 of 1
A very simple Law 45D case - revoke?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-December-30, 03:56
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,841
- Joined: 2007-January-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Exeter, UK
-
Interests:EBU/EBL TD
Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
[Walking - not so much]
Posted 2011-December-30, 04:03
Isn't this the same ruling as "Revoke?"
Why is this in Simple Rulings?
We know the omission of the disposition of the named/misplaced cards in Law 45D after both sides have played to the next trick means that ruling is not simple. We already have two threads on this topic. I think we all "know" that the trick should stand and that defenders have not revoked if they followed to the card misplaced by dummy, but we would like the Laws to say so. (Bah, Humbug!)
Why is this in Simple Rulings?
We know the omission of the disposition of the named/misplaced cards in Law 45D after both sides have played to the next trick means that ruling is not simple. We already have two threads on this topic. I think we all "know" that the trick should stand and that defenders have not revoked if they followed to the card misplaced by dummy, but we would like the Laws to say so. (Bah, Humbug!)
Robin
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,602
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2011-December-30, 10:21
Moved because Robin is right - it isn't simple. 
I've been thinking more about this. I think 45D is clear as far as it goes — if the problem is detected in time, dummy's mistake is corrected. If it is not detected in time, the mistake is not corrected. This does not, however, mean that dummy's mistaken card is the card led to the trick. The card led to the trick is still the card called by declarer. However, per Law 45C4{a}, the card for which declarer called must be played. Law 61A says that failure to play a card "required by law" to be played is a revoke. So I'm now thinking that dummy's placement of the wrong card in the trick is a revoke. Still, notwithstanding this, a defender who "follows suit" to the incorrect placement has also revoked. So when all this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (45D) the trick stands, and the revokes are established (Law 63A1) and may not be corrected (Law 63B). If only dummy has revoked, there is no rectification (Law 64B3). If a defender has also revoked, there is no rectification for that either (Law 64B7). We are left with Law 64C. Note that there are, in the case where both sides have revoked, two offending sides, and hence two non-offending sides. That makes the application of Law 64C a bit dicey, it seems to me.
It would be nice if the laws specified that when dummy put forward a wrong card, a defender cannot be faulted (has not revoked) for following suit to that wrong card. But they don't say that.
Huh. Maybe it's simpler than we thought.
I've been thinking more about this. I think 45D is clear as far as it goes — if the problem is detected in time, dummy's mistake is corrected. If it is not detected in time, the mistake is not corrected. This does not, however, mean that dummy's mistaken card is the card led to the trick. The card led to the trick is still the card called by declarer. However, per Law 45C4{a}, the card for which declarer called must be played. Law 61A says that failure to play a card "required by law" to be played is a revoke. So I'm now thinking that dummy's placement of the wrong card in the trick is a revoke. Still, notwithstanding this, a defender who "follows suit" to the incorrect placement has also revoked. So when all this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (45D) the trick stands, and the revokes are established (Law 63A1) and may not be corrected (Law 63B). If only dummy has revoked, there is no rectification (Law 64B3). If a defender has also revoked, there is no rectification for that either (Law 64B7). We are left with Law 64C. Note that there are, in the case where both sides have revoked, two offending sides, and hence two non-offending sides. That makes the application of Law 64C a bit dicey, it seems to me.
It would be nice if the laws specified that when dummy put forward a wrong card, a defender cannot be faulted (has not revoked) for following suit to that wrong card. But they don't say that.
Huh. Maybe it's simpler than we thought.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-December-30, 13:35
blackshoe, on 2011-December-30, 10:21, said:
Moved because Robin is right - it isn't simple.
I've been thinking more about this. I think 45D is clear as far as it goes — if the problem is detected in time, dummy's mistake is corrected. If it is not detected in time, the mistake is not corrected. This does not, however, mean that dummy's mistaken card is the card led to the trick. The card led to the trick is still the card called by declarer. However, per Law 45C4{a}, the card for which declarer called must be played. Law 61A says that failure to play a card "required by law" to be played is a revoke. So I'm now thinking that dummy's placement of the wrong card in the trick is a revoke. Still, notwithstanding this, a defender who "follows suit" to the incorrect placement has also revoked. So when all this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (45D) the trick stands, and the revokes are established (Law 63A1) and may not be corrected (Law 63B). If only dummy has revoked, there is no rectification (Law 64B3). If a defender has also revoked, there is no rectification for that either (Law 64B7). We are left with Law 64C. Note that there are, in the case where both sides have revoked, two offending sides, and hence two non-offending sides. That makes the application of Law 64C a bit dicey, it seems to me.
It would be nice if the laws specified that when dummy put forward a wrong card, a defender cannot be faulted (has not revoked) for following suit to that wrong card. But they don't say that.
Huh. Maybe it's simpler than we thought.
I've been thinking more about this. I think 45D is clear as far as it goes — if the problem is detected in time, dummy's mistake is corrected. If it is not detected in time, the mistake is not corrected. This does not, however, mean that dummy's mistaken card is the card led to the trick. The card led to the trick is still the card called by declarer. However, per Law 45C4{a}, the card for which declarer called must be played. Law 61A says that failure to play a card "required by law" to be played is a revoke. So I'm now thinking that dummy's placement of the wrong card in the trick is a revoke. Still, notwithstanding this, a defender who "follows suit" to the incorrect placement has also revoked. So when all this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (45D) the trick stands, and the revokes are established (Law 63A1) and may not be corrected (Law 63B). If only dummy has revoked, there is no rectification (Law 64B3). If a defender has also revoked, there is no rectification for that either (Law 64B7). We are left with Law 64C. Note that there are, in the case where both sides have revoked, two offending sides, and hence two non-offending sides. That makes the application of Law 64C a bit dicey, it seems to me.
It would be nice if the laws specified that when dummy put forward a wrong card, a defender cannot be faulted (has not revoked) for following suit to that wrong card. But they don't say that.
Huh. Maybe it's simpler than we thought.
It is simple, we have clear, appliccable laws (in addition to the primary Law 45D):
Law 66D said:
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, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side.
What is this other than a provision that properly quitted cards are final proof of the sequence in which these cards have been played?
This proof shows that in my example a club was indeed led to the trick despite any evidence that a heart was called for by declarer, and that declarer did indeed revoke by playing a heart to this trick.
When I studied the laws for my TD exam I was told the importance of sometimes observing other laws in the book in order to fully understand a particular law. This fact can be felt as a problem, and several attempts have been made over the years (by WBFLC) to reduce this situation by consolidating some of the laws.
Still any TD must be very careful not to jump to conclutions like in the present case of Law 45D not realizing that failure to draw attention to a card misplayed by dummy will nullify the play called by declarer.
As for the assertion that the misplay by dummy constitutes a revoke, fine. That doesn't change anything. This revoke is established and may not be corrected (Law 63B) so the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick instead of the card called by declarer. And as the revoke was committed with one of dummy's cards there will be no rectification (Law 64B3).
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 2007-April-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Austin, Texas
Posted 2011-December-30, 15:00
pran, on 2011-December-30, 13:35, said:
It is simple, we have clear, appliccable laws (in addition to the primary Law 45D):
What is this other than a provision that properly quitted cards are final proof of the sequence in which these cards have been played?
This proof shows that in my example a club was indeed led to the trick despite any evidence that a heart was called for by declarer, and that declarer did indeed revoke by playing a heart to this trick.
What is this other than a provision that properly quitted cards are final proof of the sequence in which these cards have been played?
This proof shows that in my example a club was indeed led to the trick despite any evidence that a heart was called for by declarer, and that declarer did indeed revoke by playing a heart to this trick.
No, this proof shows that in your example a club was indeed played to the trick. When declarer called for a heart, one could argue that hearts were led. Dummy simply revoked to the heart lead.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-December-30, 15:49
kevperk, on 2011-December-30, 15:00, said:
No, this proof shows that in your example a club was indeed played to the trick. When declarer called for a heart, one could argue that hearts were led. Dummy simply revoked to the heart lead.
That might be, but is irrelevant.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
#7
- Lamentable Bunny
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,505
- Joined: 2008-March-01
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, ME
Posted 2011-December-30, 15:59
blackshoe, on 2011-December-30, 10:21, said:
Moved because Robin is right - it isn't simple.
I've been thinking more about this. I think 45D is clear as far as it goes — if the problem is detected in time, dummy's mistake is corrected. If it is not detected in time, the mistake is not corrected. This does not, however, mean that dummy's mistaken card is the card led to the trick. The card led to the trick is still the card called by declarer. However, per Law 45C4{a}, the card for which declarer called must be played. Law 61A says that failure to play a card "required by law" to be played is a revoke. So I'm now thinking that dummy's placement of the wrong card in the trick is a revoke. Still, notwithstanding this, a defender who "follows suit" to the incorrect placement has also revoked. So when all this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (45D) the trick stands, and the revokes are established (Law 63A1) and may not be corrected (Law 63B). If only dummy has revoked, there is no rectification (Law 64B3). If a defender has also revoked, there is no rectification for that either (Law 64B7). We are left with Law 64C. Note that there are, in the case where both sides have revoked, two offending sides, and hence two non-offending sides. That makes the application of Law 64C a bit dicey, it seems to me.
It would be nice if the laws specified that when dummy put forward a wrong card, a defender cannot be faulted (has not revoked) for following suit to that wrong card. But they don't say that.
Huh. Maybe it's simpler than we thought.
I've been thinking more about this. I think 45D is clear as far as it goes — if the problem is detected in time, dummy's mistake is corrected. If it is not detected in time, the mistake is not corrected. This does not, however, mean that dummy's mistaken card is the card led to the trick. The card led to the trick is still the card called by declarer. However, per Law 45C4{a}, the card for which declarer called must be played. Law 61A says that failure to play a card "required by law" to be played is a revoke. So I'm now thinking that dummy's placement of the wrong card in the trick is a revoke. Still, notwithstanding this, a defender who "follows suit" to the incorrect placement has also revoked. So when all this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (45D) the trick stands, and the revokes are established (Law 63A1) and may not be corrected (Law 63B). If only dummy has revoked, there is no rectification (Law 64B3). If a defender has also revoked, there is no rectification for that either (Law 64B7). We are left with Law 64C. Note that there are, in the case where both sides have revoked, two offending sides, and hence two non-offending sides. That makes the application of Law 64C a bit dicey, it seems to me.
It would be nice if the laws specified that when dummy put forward a wrong card, a defender cannot be faulted (has not revoked) for following suit to that wrong card. But they don't say that.
Huh. Maybe it's simpler than we thought.
Hurray! It's "simple"!
This reminds me that mathematicians sometimes call something "trivial" if they can solve it (no matter how difficult the solution).
FWIW I agree with the above statement of application of the laws and think it also applies to the other thread.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,602
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2011-December-30, 16:40
pran, on 2011-December-30, 15:49, said:
That might be, but is irrelevant.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
it is most emphatically not irrelevant. Your "facts" are not facts. It is a fact that there is now, after the trick is quitted, a club in the trick which was contributed from dummy's hand. No way in Hell is that "proof" that a club was led. There is no implication in the laws, save one you've invented, that declarer's play "becomes void". Nowhere does the law say that. You can't just invent laws to suit yourself, Sven.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 576
- Joined: 2009-July-11
Posted 2011-December-30, 19:43
Interestingly, if this situation does change the card lead from dummy, it's possible for a card played by a defender to establish a revoke by declarer: 4 cards from the first trick, with the wrong card lead from dummy, at this point the card called for is actually lead if discovered, no revoke by declarer. Declarer leads to the next trick from hand - same still applies. Now, a defender follows to the second trick - at this point the card actually lead from dummy becomes the one which was really lead - causing declarer to have revoked, which is already established, because he's already played to a subsequent trick.
#10
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 2007-April-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Austin, Texas
Posted 2011-December-30, 22:37
pran, on 2011-December-30, 15:49, said:
That might be, but is irrelevant.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
By following just the quitted tricks, one could assume a different hand led than the one that actually led, as in the case of a lead out of turn, accepted. The card played by the hand that won the previous trick doesn't overrule everything else on what the lead was, at least by my reading of the laws. The most relevant thing is, dummy did revoke.
#11
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,422
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-December-31, 00:17
I think it's clear from all the threads about this issue that the Lawmakers simply didn't think through all the implications of dummy playing a card other than the one declarer named, and the ripple effects on other laws. The Law on settling a claim of revoke by examining quitted tricks presumes that the quitted tricks accurately reflect the cards that were played, and it's not clear that this is the case when dummy pulls the wrong card.
#12
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 2009-July-21
Posted 2011-December-31, 04:05
pran, on 2011-December-30, 15:49, said:
That might be, but is irrelevant.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
The fact is that a club was led (as proven by the quitted cards) and the trick stands as actually played, implying that the call of a heart by declarer to this trick became void.
My problem with this approach is ...
If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Declarer played from Dummy (by naming it), have I revoked - at the moment I play the card?
If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Dummy played (misplayed) from Dummy, have I revoked - at the moment I play the card?
The answers to these questions should be clear but - following your reasoning above - could change depending on later events. Likewise the "winner" of the trick could be changed by later events (or the lack of them). Such situations I find very difficult to understand.
Peter
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-December-31, 05:12
pgrice, on 2011-December-31, 04:05, said:
My problem with this approach is ...
If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Declarer played from Dummy (by naming it), have I revoked - at the moment I play the card?
If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Dummy played (misplayed) from Dummy, have I revoked - at the moment I play the card?
The answers to these questions should be clear but - following your reasoning above - could change depending on later events. Likewise the "winner" of the trick could be changed by later events (or the lack of them). Such situations I find very difficult to understand.
Peter
If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Declarer played from Dummy (by naming it), have I revoked - at the moment I play the card?
If as a defender, I follow suit to the card Dummy played (misplayed) from Dummy, have I revoked - at the moment I play the card?
The answers to these questions should be clear but - following your reasoning above - could change depending on later events. Likewise the "winner" of the trick could be changed by later events (or the lack of them). Such situations I find very difficult to understand.
Peter
My only comment to this is:
Why on earth did you not draw attention to the discrepancy between the card called by declarer and the card placed in the played position by dummy?
Remember that you have a responsibility to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). If you don't, and therefore revokes, you pay the prize.
#14
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 2009-July-21
Posted 2011-December-31, 05:31
pran, on 2011-December-31, 05:12, said:
My only comment to this is:
Why on earth did you not draw attention to the discrepancy between the card called by declarer and the card placed in the played position by dummy?
Remember that you have a responsibility to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). If you don't, and therefore revokes, you pay the prize.
Why on earth did you not draw attention to the discrepancy between the card called by declarer and the card placed in the played position by dummy?
Remember that you have a responsibility to pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). If you don't, and therefore revokes, you pay the prize.
I was paying attention - from the play so far I expected declarer to lead the suit he called for and had worked out the needed to duck smoothly ... so I did ... without watching what dummy played.
The infraction was dummy's - [L74A3 if you like] - but I now seem to being punished for not spotting it. If that is what the Law intends then so be it.
Peter
#15
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-December-31, 06:18
pgrice, on 2011-December-31, 05:31, said:
I was paying attention - from the play so far I expected declarer to lead the suit he called for and had worked out the needed to duck smoothly ... so I did ... without watching what dummy played.
The infraction was dummy's - [L74A3 if you like] - but I now seem to being punished for not spotting it. If that is what the Law intends then so be it.
Peter
The infraction was dummy's - [L74A3 if you like] - but I now seem to being punished for not spotting it. If that is what the Law intends then so be it.
Peter
And you didn't notice the discrepancy until after you or your partner played to the next trick? Sorry, as TD I would hardly buy that.
#16
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,422
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-December-31, 11:55
Declarer and 4th hand also didn't notice the discrepancy. So apparently NO ONE was paying attention. It seems like the both sides are offending, although dummy is more offensive because he started it.
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-December-31, 12:14
barmar, on 2011-December-31, 11:55, said:
Declarer and 4th hand also didn't notice the discrepancy. So apparently NO ONE was paying attention. It seems like the both sides are offending, although dummy is more offensive because he started it.
Or maybe there was no discrepancy after all? (only a listening mistake?)
Page 1 of 1