[lamford]

---

IMPS Table Result 7Hxx-12 EW+7000

The second board which the beginners played against RR and SB last week was remarkably similar, and it appeared that they had still not familiarised themselves with Law 44C. They were still waiting for a ruling on the first of the two boards, so that was no surprise. The hands were remarkably similar, and a bug with the dealing machine was suspected, but Oscar the Owl confirmed that it was pure chance and a check of the hand records confirms that the hands were exactly as shown.

This time, dummy was a little stronger, although his trump holding was crucially weaker than the previous board. Again RR was too slow to draw attention to his mechanical error which he only noticed after he had redoubled. West led a fourth best spade, and RR was unsure how to play the suit combination in spades for maximum tricks and guessed to put in the ten. East ruffed and returned a spade, ruffed by West who exited with a club, ruffed by East, who also exited with a club ruffed by West. West now played another spade. Of course the contract is now cold as declarer can cash three spades and two clubs to go with the eight tricks he will automatically have transferred at the end of the hand, but the defence continued on their merry way with six further ruffs in spades and two more in clubs and RR spent some time deciding which minor suit ace to discard at trick twelve when SB claimed as dummy. "It doesn't matter, RR", he chipped in. "Dummy has the thirteenth trump, so the contract is now RR proof". "Twelve down!" claimed East. "Well defended, partner!" "Sorry partner, I should have corrected to 7NT which is cheaper", RR suggested. "Au contraire," responded SB, "it is another +2940." "Director, please!"

"Even B would get this right," surmised SB, "and he is not the sharpest pencil in the box". "I am not sure R would, though, as he once slipped up on a claim in a four-card ending." [He was referring to occasional TDs at the North London Club, not any of our esteemed contributors on here and any similarity is coincidental.]

How would you rule?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2017-September-27, 11:45, said:

The second board which the beginners played against RR and SB last week was remarkably similar, and it appeared that they had still not familiarised themselves with Law 44C. They were still waiting for a ruling on the first of the two boards, so that was no surprise.

Even though the ruling is complicated, wasn't the reason for calling the TD in the first place clear? You could at least have made it two different players from the same class, where the instructor apparently never taught this basic rule of the game. And after two such incidents, we might want to round up everyone who took that class before letting them into the open games, and fill them in on the rules.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2017-September-28, 08:53, said:

Even though the ruling is complicated, wasn't the reason for calling the TD in the first place clear? You could at least have made it two different players from the same class, where the instructor apparently never taught this basic rule of the game. And after two such incidents, we might want to round up everyone who took that class before letting them into the open games, and fill them in on the rules.

Their course started, as many bridge courses do, at the beginning of September, and, as stated in the OP, their only lesson had been bidding and the play of one hand in no-trumps. They were under the misapprehension that one had to follow suit unless one played a trump. A search of other card games on the Internet suggests that this type of rule is quite common. They called the director on the first board as they thought SB had entered the wrong score and, as the TD did not rule on the revokes but went away to consult, they did not really know what a revoke was. Since then, lesson 2 has taught them of the need to follow suit if one can.

And I think you might be evading the ruling. Do you agree that this is +2940 and why should the previous one be any different?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2017-September-28, 10:03, said:

And I think you might be evading the ruling. Do you agree that this is +2940 and why should the previous one be any different?

Yes, I am evading it.... My brain is still hurting from the last thread.

[dcrc2]

 lamford, on 2017-September-28, 10:03, said:

Do you agree that this is +2940 and why should the previous one be any different?

Yes this one is +2940. Indeed Robin had already said exactly this a week ago back in the other thread:

 RMB1, on 2017-September-16, 12:16, said:

The misere line that EW are looking for must be to take their first revokes in different suits and hands, before any second-revoke-in-the-same-suit.

Why is it different? Because here, if East had not revoked at trick five, declarer would have taken five black-suit tricks and had eight tricks in revoke penalties, totalling 13. East cannot be allowed to gain from his revoke so declarer is awarded 13 tricks.

In the original thread, there is no corresponding point in the play where, if a revoke (or a set of revokes) had not taken place, declarer would have collected more than 10 tricks.

[lamford]

 dcrc2, on 2017-September-29, 09:03, said:

Yes this one is +2940. Indeed Robin had already said exactly this a week ago back in the other thread:

No. Robin considered both sides revoking in three separate suits, and did not address second or subsequent revokes by the same player in the same suit.

 dcrc2, on 2017-September-29, 09:03, said:

In the original thread, there is no corresponding point in the play where, if a revoke (or a set of revokes) had not taken place, declarer would have collected more than 10 tricks.

Indeed, in the original thread before the third revoke, declarer had two spades and three clubs and four for the first two revokes, so he is given nine tricks, but he still gets the later separate automatic penalties of four tricks for the first revokes each in clubs. Are you saying that he would get nine tricks if they hadn't occurred and now does not get the full automatic transfer of four more when they do?