[weejonnie]

inquiry, on 2016-April-11, 21:21, said:

"West ask if two round of clubs had been played"

Someone says "yes"

"West turns out two her last two cards" (I assume exposing to all the last two quitted tricks), and exposes the ♣5 from her hand.

Seems like a lot of violations there not covered yet. Wouldn't some number of procedural penalties be called for. West questions is not legal, the answer is a violation of the proprieties, turning over quitted tricks is a violation, and of course exposing the club five is a violation.

I agree the director should have mentioned the one trick (only) penalty and that the ruling could be appealed, but I would not like to appeal if my side answered the question about was two rounds of clubs being played. But if declarer volunteered that, perhaps there no penalty, but if West was looking at East when asking, I am sure she would have gotten an indication even if the question was not answered out-loud at the table.

Regrettably lots of problems arise (and people take advantage of) the innate tendency of bridge players to be helpful.

Bridge developed from Whist - immortalised in "the Lambton Worm" song: "Whisht lads and shut yer gobs" ie. keep quiet.

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2016-April-15, 04:04, said:

Regrettably lots of problems arise (and people take advantage of) the innate tendency of bridge players to be helpful.

Bridge developed from Whist - immortalised in "the Lambton Worm" song: "Whisht lads and shut yer gobs" ie. keep quiet.

You believe that it is better, then, to wait until the end of the hand to reveal you have revoked, when the penalty might be lighter (ie no MPC)?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-15, 08:10, said:

You believe that it is better, then, to wait until the end of the hand to reveal you have revoked, when the penalty might be lighter (ie no MPC)?

You're not required to reveal that you've revoked at all. The offending side is not required to call attention to its own irregularities.

If you can reveal that you've revoked before it becomes established, most people will do so, because the MPC often doesn't change the result, but the revoke penalty usually does (unless the OS never takes any more tricks, in which case it's a wash). Keeping silent only helps if the opponents never notice.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-April-15, 10:11, said:

You're not required to reveal that you've revoked at all. The offending side is not required to call attention to its own irregularities.

If you can reveal that you've revoked before it becomes established, most people will do so, because the MPC often doesn't change the result, but the revoke penalty usually does (unless the OS never takes any more tricks, in which case it's a wash). Keeping silent only helps if the opponents never notice.

If you discover that you've revoked before the revoke is established you must reveal that fact because you must correct the revoke. Law 62A. If you do not reveal it, )you might claim you don't have to per Law 9A4), but you will have violated a "must" law, so you should get a PP (you probably won't, but that's another issue).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-15, 10:23, said:

If you discover that you've revoked before the revoke is established you must reveal that fact because you must correct the revoke. Law 62A. If you do not reveal it, )you might claim you don't have to per Law 9A4), but you will have violated a "must" law, so you should get a PP (you probably won't, but that's another issue).

Forgot about that. As you say, you probably won't get a PP, because it will be very hard (practically impossible) for the TD to determine that you discovered the revoke. He could ask, and you should answer truthfully, but I can't really imagine a TD doing that in practice.

[blackshoe]

Well, I was envisioning that revoker might admit he knew about the revoke, but thought he didn't have to say anything because of 9A4.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-15, 12:54, said:

Well, I was envisioning that revoker might admit he knew about the revoke, but thought he didn't have to say anything because of 9A4.

Law 64A is obviously a more specific law (dealing with revokes) than Law 9A4 (dealing with irregularities in general) and as such takes precedence.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2016-April-15, 10:11, said:

You're not required to reveal that you've revoked at all. The offending side is not required to call attention to its own irregularities.

If you can reveal that you've revoked before it becomes established, most people will do so, because the MPC often doesn't change the result, but the revoke penalty usually does (unless the OS never takes any more tricks, in which case it's a wash). Keeping silent only helps if the opponents never notice.

In my (sadly not limited) experience, the MPC can cost considerably more than the revoke penalty.
In one sad hand in a match we played, it was the difference between 6NT-5 and 6NT making, even including the revoke penalty.

[axman]

Fluffy, on 2016-April-10, 15:25, said:

---

Leads is a small heart, won by declarer with the ace over West's king.
Declarer plays ♣A and another club to dummy, on the second round West discards ♦5
Declarer now tries a low spade to the ♠J, East wins ♠Q
Now West asks if 2 rounds of clubs have been played, and someone (don't remember who) says yes, 2 rounds were played.
West turns out her last 2 cards and announces a revoke, showing ♣5 on the table. At this point Director is finally summoned.

Director instrucs West to put ♣5 on her hand (not on the third trick as it was being tried), and the play to continue. Director stays on the table to see the outcome.
East switches to ♥J, declarer wins ♥Q and desperate for a 9th trick tries a low spade, East wins ♠Ace, cashes his hearts and then comes back a diamond where West collects smore more tricks, when the smoke is cleared declarer is 3 down.
Director then transfers one trick to declarer's side resulting in 2 down, 7% for NS.

2 questions:

-Is ♣5 a penalty card?
-Should director had instructed declarer than 1 trick would transfer at the end of the deal to his side?

A corollary question concerns repercussions when, after the revoke is established, a defender merely announces he revoked (does not expose his card)?

When the player says he revoked he is announcing that he had a club. To which L49 speaks: .....when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);

In such circumstance, by his announcement he is compel to expose his card as a PC.

Some may argue that saying you have a club is not the same as naming the card: however, L46B2 when speaking of naming a suit states 2.If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

[pran]

axman, on 2016-April-16, 10:48, said:

A corollary question concerns repercussions when, after the revoke is established, a defender merely announces he revoked (does not expose his card)?

When the player says he revoked he is announcing that he had a club. To which L49 speaks: .....when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);

In such circumstance, by his announcement he is compel to expose his card as a PC.

Some may argue that saying you have a club is not the same as naming the card: however, L46B2 when speaking of naming a suit states 2.If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

Law 46B applies if Declarer makes an incorrect or incomplete designation when calling a card to be played from Dummy. I don't think this can be extended to apply when a defender announces that he has revoked but does not actually expose a card he could legally have played.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-April-15, 17:04, said:

In my (sadly not limited) experience, the MPC can cost considerably more than the revoke penalty.

I said it usually doesn't, I never said it couldn't. OTOH, the revoke penalty ALWAYS costs a trick (if there's a trick to be cost).