[Cascade]

The discussion of damage - "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred" - in another thread reminded me of this situation.

A defender fails to follow suit and everyone quits the trick.

One defender then turns his card back face up and asks to see the trick.

Declarer says no the trick has been quit.

The other defender turns his card face up any way.

One of these defenders then realizes that his partner has revoked and pointedly leaves his card face up until his partner also realizes he has revoked.

Without the infraction of facing cards that have been quit it is likely that the revoke would have been established. Assume in this case that the one trick penalty would have been a windfall for declarer.

Has their been damage caused by the infraction of facing a card that has been quit?

[peachy]

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

The discussion of damage - "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred" - in another thread reminded me of this situation.

A defender fails to follow suit and everyone quits the trick.

One defender then turns his card back face up and asks to see the trick.

Declarer says no the trick has been quit.

The other defender turns his card face up any way.

One of these defenders then realizes that his partner has revoked and pointedly leaves his card face up until his partner also realizes he has revoked.

Without the infraction of facing cards that have been quit it is likely that the revoke would have been established. Assume in this case that the one trick penalty would have been a windfall for declarer.

Has their been damage caused by the infraction of facing a card that has been quit?

Interesting scenario.

This is in effect the same situation as if the defender who asked to see the quitted trick saying: "Partner, no hearts?" except that the defender also broke L66.C

If such an inquiry is allowed by the RA - it is allowed in ACBL - then this defender had the right to ask while the trick was not yet quitted, and if after quitting and before anyone has played to the next trick, then just ask instead of breaking L66C and inducing partner to break same law. I don't know what the time limit for such question is but I assume that before play to the next trick. There is also no penalty or rectification specified for breaking L66.C as far as I could find. IMO there is no damage because the defender could have legally just asked.

If such inquiries are not allowed by the RA - then this defender is engaging in illegal shenanigans. Even if there is no law to cover these maneuvres, the TD has the power to use his judgment. If I were the TD, I would think damage existed when the declaring side was denied the benefit of an extra trick due to opponent's revoke.

[bluejak]

The opposition were damaged by them showing a card illegally - or may have been, anyway. So I would adjust under Law 12A1 and give the opposition a trick.

[Cascade]

peachy, on Jul 14 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 13 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

The discussion of damage - "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred" - in another thread reminded me of this situation.

A defender fails to follow suit and everyone quits the trick. 

One defender then turns his card back face up and asks to see the trick. 

Declarer says no the trick has been quit.

The other defender turns his card face up any way.

One of these defenders then realizes that his partner has revoked and pointedly leaves his card face up until his partner also realizes he has revoked.

Without the infraction of facing cards that have been quit it is likely that the revoke would have been established.  Assume in this case that the one trick penalty would have been a windfall for declarer.

Has their been damage caused by the infraction of facing a card that has been quit?

Interesting scenario.

This is in effect the same situation as if the defender who asked to see the quitted trick saying: "Partner, no hearts?" except that the defender also broke L66.C

If such an inquiry is allowed by the RA - it is allowed in ACBL - then this defender had the right to ask while the trick was not yet quitted, and if after quitting and before anyone has played to the next trick, then just ask instead of breaking L66C and inducing partner to break same law. I don't know what the time limit for such question is but I assume that before play to the next trick. There is also no penalty or rectification specified for breaking L66.C as far as I could find. IMO there is no damage because the defender could have legally just asked.

If such inquiries are not allowed by the RA - then this defender is engaging in illegal shenanigans. Even if there is no law to cover these maneuvres, the TD has the power to use his judgment. If I were the TD, I would think damage existed when the declaring side was denied the benefit of an extra trick due to opponent's revoke.

The problem is that most likely the question did not occur to them until they saw partner's card after it was illegally exposed.

[jdonn]

Perhaps not legal, but my idea of a fair solution would be that the defender is forced to follow suit, first card played is a penalty card, declarer gains no other adjustment (but of course may benefit from the penalty card), and the defenders get a rather large procedural penalty after the hand. Hopefully even larger than whatever score they earned on the board altogether.

[Cascade]

At the time the director in a National event ruled "No Damage" and "No Penalty".

[Rossoneri]

Cascade, on Jul 14 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

At the time the director in a National event ruled "No Damage" and "No Penalty".

Under Zone 6 regulations, defenders are allowed to ask at the risk of creating UI. I would guess this might have influenced the director?

Interesting question though. I would be tempted to rule differently on the basis of the illegal action of facing a quitted trick. Law 66C states that quitted tricks may only be faced at the Director's specific instruction, and this is not certainly the case.

[bluejak]

Whether partner is allowed to ask - which I think he now is everywhere - is a red herring. The revoke was discovered because of an infraction, so adjust.

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Jul 14 2009, 07:13 AM, said:

Whether partner is allowed to ask - which I think he now is everywhere - is a red herring.  The revoke was discovered because of an infraction, so adjust.

I agree on that, but do we also agree that if the player had specifically asked about revoke rather than asking to have the quitted trick inspected, then it would have been OK? Law 61B sets no time limit on such questions.

regards Sven

[barmar]

I think Sven is correct. Although 61B doesn't explicitly state a limit on asking the question, I believe it's effectively limited to when the revoke becomes established (the point of the question is to allow the offending player to correct it, in accordance with 62A, and he can't do that after it's established). Although I suppose one could also ask later, to determine whether there's an established revoke.

So perhaps the right solution in this case is a PP. Turning over the quitted trick was basically an improper way to ask partner if he revoked. But unless they're in a location that disallows the question, he hasn't really achieved anything illegal.

[skjaeran]

The OP says nothing about which defender revoked and which defender turned his card to the quitted trick and asked to see the trick.

[bluejak]

He turned over a card and asked to see the trick which was an infractioin.

No, it is not the same as asking whether partner had revoked because that is legal. It is the same as not following suit when you have a card of the suit: it is doing something illegal. So adjust.

[Sven Pran]

I have no problem with the fact that exposing cards from a quitted trick is an infraction of the laws.

My point is that if a defender (suddenly) suspects a revoke by either (a:) himself or (b:) his partner then as I understand the laws it is perfectly legal for him to:

a: Inspect his own last played card and ask a question to the effect: "Was [named suit] led to the last trick?"

b: Ask his partner a question to the effect: "Did you revoke in the last trick?"

Sven

[Grazy69]

The solution to this problem would have been straight forward under the 1997 Laws
Law 63 B stated ..

<quote>
63B.Attention Is Illegally Drawn
When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established.
<quote>

The revoke was established - play would continue - and at the end of the hand apply Law64 Procedure after establishment of a revoke.

Does anyone know why this section was removed from Law63 (2007) ?

With 2007 Laws its not so obvious how to continue after the "violation" but the result should still be the same as with the 1997 laws

So the TD ruling doesn't look correct

You would need to follow Law 64 to see how many if any tricks are transfered to the non-offenders

[Sven Pran]

Grazy69, on Jul 21 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

The solution to this problem would have been straight forward under the 1997 Laws
Law 63 B stated ..

<quote>
63B.Attention Is Illegally Drawn
When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established.
<quote>
..........
Does anyone know why this section was removed from Law63 (2007) ?

Sure.

A change in the revoke laws of 1997, subject to zonal approval, removed from defenders the right to ask partner about a possible revoke. This change caused much confusion, and (for instance?) ACBL never implemented it. As of 2007 defenders may again ask partner about possible revoke.

Sven

[bluejak]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:47 AM, said:

I have no problem with the fact that exposing cards from a quitted trick is an infraction of the laws.

My point is that if a defender (suddenly) suspects a revoke by either (a:) himself or (b:) his partner then as I understand the laws it is perfectly legal for him to:

a: Inspect his own last played card and ask a question to the effect: "Was [named suit] led to the last trick?"

b: Ask his partner a question to the effect: "Did you revoke in the last trick?"

Sven

Yes, but we have been asked a specific question. It is completely true that in a totally different situation the ruling would be totally different.

[bluejak]

Grazy69, on Jul 21 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

The solution to this problem would have been straight forward under the 1997 Laws
Law 63 B stated ..

<quote>
63B.Attention Is Illegally Drawn
When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established.
<quote>

The revoke was established - play would continue - and at the end of the hand apply Law64 Procedure after establishment of a revoke.

Does anyone know why this section was removed from Law63 (2007) ?

It was never enabled in North America, and the strong rumour was that they felt they could not persuade their players to follow it.

Changing it back is a concession to North America, I feel. England and Japan are both displeased: the change had worked well.

Actually, techinically, it was not changed back, but by removing the penalty it was unworkable to continue with this Law.

[Cascade]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

a: Inspect his own last played card and ask a question to the effect: "Was [named suit] led to the last trick?"

I don't think this is a legal question.

"Law20 ...
G. Incorrect Procedure
1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit."

Certainly partner cannot lawfully answer this question

"L73
A. Appropriate Communication between Partners
1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall
be effected only by means of calls and plays."

and I can see no responsibility on the opponents that requires that they answer this question.

[Sven Pran]

Cascade, on Jul 21 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

a: Inspect his own last played card and ask a question to the effect: "Was [named suit] led to the last trick?"

I don't think this is a legal question.

"Law20 ...
G. Incorrect Procedure
1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit."

Certainly partner cannot lawfully answer this question

"L73
A. Appropriate Communication between Partners
1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall
be effected only by means of calls and plays."

and I can see no responsibility on the opponents that requires that they answer this question.

Who says the question is directed to partner?
Who says the question is asked for partner's benefit?

If opponents refuse to answer the question or if the player still fears that he may have revoked I consider it fully legal for him to summon the director and explain his fear.

His possible revoke is in case not yet established and he cannot be denied the right to correct his revoke in time when possible.

Sven