[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

East is playing 3NT and south leads A&K of clubs. On the third lead
south again leads a club (he's got 6 of them) and declarer takes the
trick with his queen. North revokes and doesn't play his final club,
but sloughs off instead. North later takes a trick and leads the
club he wouldn't have if he hadn't revoked at trick 3. South can
take the trick and run his remaining clubs. East would be down 2
but can make 4NT without the revoke so it's a 3 trick swing.

When the director is called should he forbid north from leading the
club he wouldn't have if he had followed suit at the third trick?

jerdonald

[Vampyr]

jerdonald, on 2014-August-21, 21:59, said:

When the director is called should he forbid north from leading the
club he wouldn't have if he had followed suit at the third trick?

There is no law that permits this. The director restores equity after the hand is played. See L64C.

[blackshoe]

jerdonald, on 2014-August-21, 21:59, said:

BBO forum,

East is playing 3NT and south leads A&K of clubs. On the third lead
south again leads a club (he's got 6 of them) and declarer takes the
trick with his queen. North revokes and doesn't play his final club,
but sloughs off instead. North later takes a trick and leads the
club he wouldn't have if he hadn't revoked at trick 3. South can
take the trick and run his remaining clubs. East would be down 2
but can make 4NT without the revoke so it's a 3 trick swing.

When the director is called should he forbid north from leading the
club he wouldn't have if he had followed suit at the third trick?

jerdonald

No. Once either North or South plays or leads to the trick after the one on which North revoked, the revoke is established (Law 63A1), and North's play on the revoke trick cannot be changed (Law 63B). The legal rectification for an established revoke involves the transfer of tricks after the hand is played out. There is no legal justification for preventing North from playing his club later in the play, even though he's revoked. In this case, prior to rectification, East is down 2. North did not win the revoke trick, so after the play one trick is transferred to EW (Law 64A2). However, now the TD has to look at Law 64C, which tells him to assign an adjusted score if EW are insufficiently compensated by Law 64A. In this case, the TD should adjust the score to 3NT making 4, +430 or +630 (you didn't state the vulnerability) for EW.

NB: often the rectification for the revoke will actually give the NOS more tricks than they might have gotten absent the revoke. That's considered okay given that we want to discourage revoking.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

If the revoke is resolved after the board is played the director will
ask if the defenders took any tricks after the revoke and if so will
award 2 tricks to declarer. In this situation it is advantageous
for the defense to revoke. How can the director resolve this?

jerdonald

[blackshoe]

jerdonald, on 2014-August-21, 23:11, said:

BBO forum,

If the revoke is resolved after the board is played the director will
ask if the defenders took any tricks after the revoke and if so will
award 2 tricks to declarer. In this situation it is advantageous
for the defense to revoke. How can the director resolve this?

No. Only if the revoking player won the revoke trick, and his side won one or more subsequent tricks, will two tricks be transferred. If the revoking player did not win the revoke trick, only one trick is transferred (unless the revoking side won no tricks after and including the revoke trick, in which case no tricks are transferred).

It is illegal to deliberately violate the rules of the game. See Law 72B1. A player who does this is subject to discipline by a disciplinary committee. Such discipline could include being barred from playing in tournaments for some time period up to and including the player's lifetime.

It's difficult to catch every instance of such a thing, but a player who does it once and gets away with it will do it again. Eventually, he'll get caught, and then we throw the book at him.

[gordontd]

jerdonald, on 2014-August-21, 23:11, said:

BBO forum,

If the revoke is resolved after the board is played the director will
ask if the defenders took any tricks after the revoke and if so will
award 2 tricks to declarer. In this situation it is advantageous
for the defense to revoke. How can the director resolve this?

jerdonald

As stated above, by using Law 64C to restore equity, in this instance by awarding a score of 3NT+1.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2014-August-22, 00:11, said:

As stated above, by using Law 64C to restore equity, in this instance by awarding a score of 3NT+1.

The whole point of this law is to prevent this problem. Basically, the NOS always gets 1 or 2 extra tricks, depending on the specific circumtances, and may get more if the revoke allowed an otherwise impossibly successful line of play.

[chrism]

In a local Regional recently, a defender smartly gained 4 tricks by holding up for 2 rounds with her singleton Jack. The tricks were duly restored to declarer as described above.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Thanks for all the replies.

In my example how will the director determine how many tricks
to award? Better defense will hold East to 9 tricks or even
set the contract so there will be several outcomes recorded.

jerdonald

[blackshoe]

jerdonald, on 2014-August-22, 19:20, said:

In my example how will the director determine how many tricks to award? Better defense will hold East to 9 tricks or even set the contract so there will be several outcomes recorded.

The outcomes at other tables are generally not relevant to the ruling at a table where an irregularity has occurred. The main reason for this is that you don't know how the auction or play went at other tables, and it may not be the same, or even close to the same, as at the table where you're ruling. The TD has to use his best judgement (possibly consulting with other TDs or good players) to decide what adjustment to make.

In the ACBL, Law 12C1{e} tells the TD on what principles to base his ruling: the NOS gets "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" and the OS gets "the most unfavorable result that was at all possible had the irregularity not occurred". In your example, since the defenders are the offending side, nobody is going to get an adjusted score based on better defense. From what you said in your first post, the most favorable result that was likely for the NOS was 3NT making four. That's also apparently (hard to tell without seeing the hands) the most unfavorable (for the OS) result that was at all possible, so both sides get that score (3NT EW making four for both sides). If, for example, it were "at all possible" but not "likely" that EW might make five NT, then EW would get the score for 3NT making 4 (+630 if they were vulnerable) and NS would get the score for 3NT making five (-660 if EW were vulnerable). These scores do not balance, but Law 12C1{f} tells us that's okay.

In non-ACBL jurisdictions, Law 12C1{c} governs, rather than 12C1{e}. 12C1{c} says that when there are a number of potential results, the scores for them can be weighted, and typically the weighted score will be assigned to both sides (so the scores in these cases will (almost?) always balance). But that procedure is not legal in the ACBL.