[mink]

In an NT contract Dummy had ♥QT and RHO had good ♥K and good ♦9 left. In trick 12 Declarer played a low ♥ to the Q, and RHO discarded the ♦9. The last trick was played and won by the ♥K. The revoke was recognized when the cards were still not put back into the board. Ruling?

Karl

[RMB1]

The law seems clear - Law 62D. Law 62D2 does not apply. Law 62D1 says the revoke (even if established) is corrected - offending side make the last two tricks.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure the assumption implied in the topic header is correct. In fact I'm sure it's not. Before the revoke, declarer's equity in the last two tricks was zero. After the revoke was corrected, he lost both those tricks. So there was, by definition, no damage. After the revoke his expectation may have changed, but that's irrelevant [Law 12B1].

[mink]

The topic header says that the offending side was damaged by their own revoke. Maybe it should have said, they were potentially damaged. If all cards were put back into the board without mentioning the revoke, the damage would have been established. As, however, the revoke was recognized in time, the damage was eliminated by the rectification required by law 62D1.

Probably this is the only case where calling attention to an irregularity causes a disadvantage for the non-offending side. This is really odd and the contrary of what I expect any law in any sport to be designed.

There are a lot of places in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge where the non-offending side is granted the right to accept an irregularity if they expect a better result this way. Likewise, law 62D1 should be amended by "..., unless the correction would transfer one or more tricks to the offending side."

Karl

[blackshoe]

mink, on 2012-October-06, 17:10, said:

The topic header says that the offending side was damaged by their own revoke. Maybe it should have said, they were potentially damaged. If all cards were put back into the board without mentioning the revoke, the damage would have been established. As, however, the revoke was recognized in time, the damage was eliminated by the rectification required by law 62D1.

Probably this is the only case where calling attention to an irregularity causes a disadvantage for the non-offending side. This is really odd and the contrary of what I expect any law in any sport to be designed.

There are a lot of places in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge where the non-offending side is granted the right to accept an irregularity if they expect a better result this way. Likewise, law 62D1 should be amended by "..., unless the correction would transfer one or more tricks to the offending side."

Well, I did miss "offending side" in the topic title. But that doesn't matter. There was no damage to either side.

Correction of an unestablished revoke has nothing to do with transferring tricks.

If the defenders make a bridge mistake (leading the wrong suit, playing the wrong card) I'm happy to "profit" from it. I'm not happy to profit from this revoke.

"The revoke was recognized when the cards were still not put back in the board," you said. Who called attention to it?

[mink]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-06, 18:08, said:

Well, I did miss "offending side" in the topic title. But that doesn't matter. There was no damage to either side.

Again: if the revoke had not been recognized early enough, the offending side would have been damaged.

blackshoe, on 2012-October-06, 18:08, said:

Correction of an unestablished revoke has nothing to do with transferring tricks.

The revoke was established after trick 13. There are two steps: the revoke and the rectification. After the revoke, the offending side had 1 of the two last tricks. After the rectification, the offending side had 2 of the two last tricks. Effectively, one trick was transferred to the offending side.

blackshoe, on 2012-October-06, 18:08, said:

If the defenders make a bridge mistake (leading the wrong suit, playing the wrong card) I'm happy to "profit" from it. I'm not happy to profit from this revoke.

But you are happy, if you happen to commit such a revoke, that the rectification returns trick to you that you had already lost by this stupid error? It was not only a revoke, but also a bridge error, because a winner was discarded. There are plenty of errors every day that are entirely lawful but hardly can be called "bridge mistakes".

blackshoe, on 2012-October-06, 18:08, said:

"The revoke was recognized when the cards were still not put back in the board," you said. Who called attention to it?

I cannot see why this is relevant. Anyway, it was the dummy who mentioned the revoke after trick 13.

Karl

[gordontd]

mink, on 2012-October-07, 03:10, said:

The revoke was established after trick 13. There are two steps: the revoke and the rectification. After the revoke, the offending side had 1 of the two last tricks. After the rectification, the offending side had 2 of the two last tricks.

Quote

L64B There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:

6. if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick.

[gnasher]

Whatever you call it, the original result was one trick to the offenders and the end result was two tricks to the offenders. When the non-offenders drew attention to the infraction, it cost them a trick.

[ahydra]

mink said:

a bridge error, because a winner was discarded

Yes, perforce (RHO had only winners left). That's not really an error!

Does anyone know why there is a specific exception for revokes on the 12th trick? I guess it's more likely to be equitable?

As the rules stand though, the revoke must be corrected, so declarer lost both of the last two tricks. Yes he loses out by drawing attention to the revoke, but tough, that's what the Laws say, and it's not like he's actually lost anything since he was always going to lose the last two tricks if RHO had been paying attention.

But what of the question "do the NOS have to draw attention to the irregularity"? I don't think so - Law 9 mentions you don't have to draw attention to your own side's irregularities, but says nothing about having to do so for the opponents'. So if dummy had stayed silent (because he knew if he drew attention to the revoke his side would lose a trick), and the revoke went unnoticed, that's unsportsmanlike but perfectly legal.

ahydra

[mink]

gordontd, on 2012-October-07, 03:55, said:

mink said:

The revoke was established after trick 13. There are two steps: the revoke and the rectification. After the revoke, the offending side had 1 of the two last tricks. After the rectification, the offending side had 2 of the two last tricks.

"Law 64B ..."

When I was talking about rectification here, I meant a rectification according to Law 62D1, of course, and not Law 64.

Karl

[blackshoe]

I find this whole thread a bit confusing. Mink posed a scenario and asked for a ruling, which Robin provided. Mink later (and, I suppose, in the thread title) suggested that the offending side were damaged by their own revoke (had it not been corrected). This is I suppose true, if you define "damage" using a dictionary. However, "damage" is defined in the laws as only possibly occurring for an innocent side [Law 12B1]. So the suggestion that the offending side were (potentially) damaged by their own revoke makes no sense in the context of bridge law. Put it another way: suppose no one had drawn attention to the revoke until later in the round. In that case, the revoke would stand, the defense would have lost a trick they might have got had they not screwed up, and there is no basis in law for an adjustment to the score. IOW, when you violate the rules, if that works out well for you, your advantage will be taken away by score adjustment. If it doesn't work out well for you, too bad. I don't see anything wrong with that. Am I missing something?

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2012-October-07, 05:39, said:

Does anyone know why there is a specific exception for revokes on the 12th trick? I guess it's more likely to be equitable?

I think the intent of the normal revoke penalty, where a certain number of tricks is automatically transferred, was to avoid requiring the TD to figure out how the play would have gone without the revoke in order to determine equity. He can still do this in particular cases, if he believes that the automatic penalty is not sufficient, but most of the time he doesn't.

But in the case of a revoke on trick 12, this judgement is almost trivial -- the revoker will obviously play his last two cards in just the opposite order. However, if the revoke is by 2nd or 3rd hand, it could cause declarer to misplay on that trick. Although there's no automatic revoke penalty when this occurs, the TD can still make a 64C adjustment in this case (it specifically says that it may be applied when the revoke is not subject to rectification).

[mink]

I started this thread for 3 reasons:

• To find out if I had missed any other law that should have been applied in addition to law 62D1. Looks like there isn't any.
  
• To point out that in this case the offending side benefits from the law, as a trick lost by the infraction is returned to them.
  
• To point out that in this case drawing attention to an infraction causes a disadvantage for the non-offending side.

Meanwhile I also found a way to utilize this law in an unethical way.
The original example is slightly changed:

NT contract by South, this time North (dummy) has the lead and ♥10 is ordered.

---

East knows that partner must have a good spade, as declarer did not play the spades. She also knows that the red Jacks are missing, but has no idea who has which. Playing ♦9 now results in 2 further tricks if West has the ♥J and N/S fail to recognize the revoke, which is not unlikely as West wins both tricks and the last East card is deemed irrelevant. If West has the ♦J (as shown above), East calls the TD and gets the lost ♥ trick back by law 62D1. Applying Law 62D2 has no effect in this case.

According to blackshoe, the non-offending side is not damaged, so Law 23 cannot be applied.

Karl

[blackshoe]

No, but Law 72B1 can be.

[barmar]

If I were declarer in that situation, I would already have conceded the last 2 tricks. Other than this revoke, I don't think there's any way I can get a trick with those cards.

[bluejak]

mink, on 2012-October-08, 02:08, said:

East knows that partner must have a good spade, as declarer did not play the spades. She also knows that the red Jacks are missing, but has no idea who has which. Playing ♦9 now results in 2 further tricks if West has the ♥J and N/S fail to recognize the revoke, which is not unlikely as West wins both tricks and the last East card is deemed irrelevant. If West has the ♦J (as shown above), East calls the TD and gets the lost ♥ trick back by law 62D1. Applying Law 62D2 has no effect in this case.

According to blackshoe, the non-offending side is not damaged, so Law 23 cannot be applied.

I am not sure that blackshoe had this specific position in mind. Anyway, the non-offending side is damaged in my view and I apply Law 23.

I don't like Law 72B1. By applying Law 23 I can adjust without calling anyone a cheat.

[blackshoe]

I don't like it much when somebody posits a scenario, and then says 'Blackshoe said such-and-such is true in this case', when I haven't said anything about this case. Yes, I said something about a different case, but unless you're a laws expert, if you extrapolate from that to this new case, you're likely to miss something that changes the game. So I'd appreciate it if folks would not put words in my mouth.

That said, the definition of "damage" in law 12 says we are to compare the situation after an irregularity with the situation before the irregularity. In Karl's second case, declarer's equity in the last two tricks is zero. After East's revoke, declarer's equity in the last two tricks is one or two tricks, depending whether West pitches his spade winner. So I don't see how the non-offending side is damaged. Could you explain, David?

If the NOS is damaged, then yes, apply Law 23.

[bluejak]

Sorry, I read it wrong, and, in fact, it is clearly badly constructed. The defence is going to make two tricks with or without the revoke so it will make two tricks.

But there are positions where there is damage.

Like you, I dislike generalities extrapolated.

[mink]

In my last post I was discussing 2 different layouts of the last 8 cards: One shown by the diagram and the other the same but the red Jacks exchanged between South and West.

In the layout shown in the diagram, obviously defenders will win 2 tricks for sure if this is played without a revoke, and yes, declarer could have conceded the last 2 tricks. I also agree that law 23 cannot be applied in case of a revoke by East, because the non-offending side is not damaged.

But East does not know if this is the actual layout of if the red Jacks are exchanged. In the latter case, defenders can win only 1 trick with ♥K, and the last trick is won by the ♦J in the South hand. East, however, can try to win 2 trick here, too, by revoking deliberately with ♦9. Now West can claim 2 tricks with ♥J and ♠K. In this case, East does not call the director, hoping that the revoke is not recognized. If it turns out that South had the ♥J as in the diagram, East does call the director and gets back the trick lost by the revoke.

Of course I know that a deliberate revoke is a serious infraction. But East can easily say that she thought the ♦9 was a ♥9, and it is impossible to prove that the revoke was committed deliberately.

Karl

[iviehoff]

mink, on 2012-October-09, 06:59, said:

Of course I know that a deliberate revoke is a serious infraction. But East can easily say that she thought the ♦9 was a ♥9, and it is impossible to prove that the revoke was committed deliberately.

There's nothing unusual about this situation. It isn't unusual to gain by an infraction if it isn't noticed, and you have no obligation to draw attention to your own infraction. Doing it deliberately is clearly very naughty, but it is always difficult to demonstrate someone did it deliberately. The director should strain against applying L72B1 because accusing someone of doing something illegal deliberately (rather than through ignorance or confusion) is a very serious matter.

There are indeed quite a few possibilities for operators in bridge, and it can take a long time to expose them.