[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Mar 22 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

This hand occurred in the final day of the national swiss...

Scoring: IMP

Bidding was 1N p 2C X 2D(shows stopper, denies major) p 3N

---

West led a club which South ducked. South won the next club and played the DK. East won and cashed a club, south followed, and at this point there was a discrepancy. South thought he saw west discard and thus claimed down 1, the statement being "you get 4 clubs and a diamond." East, who is not a native english speaker said "3" but it wasnt clear what this meant and south said "down 1" thinking east was asking if the contract made 3 or not. The hand was thrown in. After the match, a kibitzer told south he thought west still had a club left. West was already talking to the director as he realized something had happened. West maintained that he had followed suit. Dummy and east didn't see, and the kibitzer said he was unsure what had happened. South said he had seen west discard and that was the only reason he would claim down 1. As you can see if he had not claimed he would need to guess spades to make 9 tricks. Both south and west are expert players.

How do you rule?

Hi Justin

I believe that the revoke trumps anything that occured after it.

The first thing to do is to verify that West revoked and then resolve this as normal.

[awm]

I believe the result of "down one" must stand. Even if west did in fact revoke, which is impossible to determine based on the information available, we have Law 11B:

The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Mar 22 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 22 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

This hand occurred in the final day of the national swiss...

Scoring: IMP

Bidding was 1N p 2C X 2D(shows stopper, denies major) p 3N

---

West led a club which South ducked. South won the next club and played the DK. East won and cashed a club, south followed, and at this point there was a discrepancy. South thought he saw west discard and thus claimed down 1, the statement being "you get 4 clubs and a diamond." East, who is not a native english speaker said "3" but it wasnt clear what this meant and south said "down 1" thinking east was asking if the contract made 3 or not. The hand was thrown in. After the match, a kibitzer told south he thought west still had a club left. West was already talking to the director as he realized something had happened. West maintained that he had followed suit. Dummy and east didn't see, and the kibitzer said he was unsure what had happened. South said he had seen west discard and that was the only reason he would claim down 1. As you can see if he had not claimed he would need to guess spades to make 9 tricks. Both south and west are expert players.

How do you rule?

Hi Justin

I believe that the revoke trumps anything that occured after it.

The first thing to do is to verify that West revoked and then resolve this as normal.

In the orginal post, Justin did say that LHO denied he revoked, declarer claimed he did, and everyone else disavoid knowledge, including the kibitizer. So it is not established that a revoke occurred and at the time of the cliaim, and if he did revoke the claim came before it was established.

Thus, no agreement that a revoke occurred. Even if it did occur, it was not "established".

There is some active ethics issue, but declarer conceded tricks (a club) that can not be lost, but more boards were played and the round ended. Sorry, they stay lost. After a claim, a disuputed claim will not allow the declarer to get the spade hook right.

I am, however, very disappointed in EW allowing declarer to give up an impossible 4 club losers. The director should have been called right then. While there is a dispute over what LHO played (one said followed suit, one not, no one else has an opinion). The funny claim should have gotten some action immediately. Especially from RHO (who didn't know and didn't see his partners card). So neither side is blameless. But i guess i would rule the result stands, but i would not be happy about it.

[jtfanclub]

Strange stuff...not only would you have to argue about whether West followed suit, but whether West had even played to the trick or not. If I'm understanding the story right, West played another suit (let's say a heart) and then South immediately claimed without playing from dummy. If West exposed a heart, South immediately made a claim, and West never put the card on the table, was that a played card or an accidental exposure? If his partner didn't see it, it's not a played card, and therefore not a revoke. The fact that North didn't see this card (or at least, didn't remember seeing it) implies to me that it wasn't sitting on the table while the discussion was going on.

In fact, if it did hit the table, and West picked it up before East acquiesed to the claim, it's still not an established revoke by my reading of Rule 63. I don't think there is any way I could consider adjusting this if that trick hadn't been quitted.


Edited to add....
Inquiry:

As far as the claim goes, East said he was only getting 3 club tricks, and South insisted that he was still going down one. This makes perfect sense because, after the claim, South is required to finesse the spade the wrong way, so he was in fact going down one. EW did not accept an impossible claim. East corrected the claim, and accepted the correct result.

[jtfanclub]

I don't know...it's a (legal) retraction of a card played, Law 47. It becomes a major penalty card, but that's not going to assauge any damage.

In a simpler example, I lead a suit, RHO shows out. I therefore start the next trick. Before his partner plays, RHO says "Oh, I do have one of those", and corrects it before the revoke is established. Am I entitled to damages because his revoke and retraction caused me to expose a card I would not have otherwise shown? I don't see any remedy in Laws 48-50.

I think you're screwed.

[han]

Interesting situation. I don't know what the rules say in this situation, but I sure hope that equity was restored.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Mar 22 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

As usual I don't agree with anything you are saying, if you really think you are entitled to gains from not following suit then your ideas are really skewed. I think you are the only one that would not allow an adjustment if west agreed he did not follow suit.

You don't need to agree or disagree with me, you need to read Law 64, Section B, part 5.

It's the one that says that no penalty shall be assessed for a revoke "if attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended". Edited to add- yes, if West suddenly had an act of contrition, you could use part C. Short of West asking for such an adjustment, I cannot imagine it happening. There's certianly nothing in the rules that mandates it.

There can not be an adjustment for this revoke. There might have been if West had picked up the card and put it back in his hand or otherwise not left it for all four sides to see it, but I find no such remedy in Laws 48-50.

[kenberg]

If W did indeed follow to the third club I doubt he would feel that equity had been restored if the director adjusted the score. I don't see how it can be decided on anything but evaluating the assertion W did not follow.

In the abstract, we can certainly consider the possibility that E saw the S cards, realized his partner revoked, and quickly threw in the cards. We can realize that as a possibility, but we cannot rule on the assumption of its truth. It is also possible S was mistaken. Clubs don't actually look a lot like hearts, but it's possible.

Lacking evidence, the claim of down 1 stands.

Sometime back I was playing against a lady who I was pretty sure had revoked and was waiting for the end of the play to check. In one movement she played the last card, scooped up the played cards, and shuffled them. It was impressive physical dexterity. No adjustment was made. I was robbed. Quite possibly S was too.

[skjaeran]

If we suppose the TD was in fact able to come to the conclusion that west did revoke, it's still possible to adjust.

It's true Law 64B4 say that there's no penalty for a revoke if attention was drawn to it after the non-offending side made a call on the next deal.

And it's true that Law 11B1 say that the right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible.

But we still have Law 64C: When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. This is no penalty, but an equity ruling, restoring the "correct" result on the board.

If the Director is satisfied that he has ascertained the facts (here: the rovoke), he rules as in Law 84. That is, he rules under the Law that applies to the offence. In this case Law 64C.

Thus, he can adjust to 3NT making, or even a split score (3NT making for NS, -1 for EW).

On the actual board there's no sure way to 9 tricks. So a split score would IMO be the best equity ruling here. That is, NS makes 3NT and EW beats it.

[Poky]

Jlall, on Mar 23 2007, 01:51 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 22 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

There can not be an adjustment for this revoke.

you still dont get the point. try again.

Hmm, did the Director ask East what he meant when he said "3" after the claim?

As I see, East, being an expert player, is a very good candidate for Director's "black book", no matter had West really revoked or not.

[kenberg]

I had thought (I just misread) that it was W who said "three". But it was E. This makes me feel better about him. It seems at least plausible to believe that he meant "three" to mean three clubs, not four, after which he may well have felt he had done his duty.

With this view it goes, with possibly intended meanings filled in:

S: You get four clubs and a diamond.

E: No, three clubs.

S: I'm down one.

E: OK

Yes, I am sure the director should have been called. But I can imagine an attitude of "Well, I explained I am only taking three clubs, if S needs a director he can call".

This seems possible to me.

I remain suspicious about West's play to the third club. E is under no obligation to call attention to a revoke but saying later he wasn't watching is another matter. Presumably in this event you are watching the cards your partner plays.

Maybe the solution is to shoot the kibitzer who knew W had a third club but didn't know if he played it.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Mar 23 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

Maybe the solution is to shoot the kibitzer who knew W had a third club but didn't know if he played it.

Ok, 40% to the kibber and 60% to the TD. Problem solved, next board

[han]

I don't think I like the outcome. Again, I don't know what the rules shoudl say, but I would prefer the board to be thrown out. You got a bad score while it may have been that the opponents revoked and then didn't correct your claim.