[Sven Pran]

Norway:

I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same trick? (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO discarded a small club, they both still had hearts.)

Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game).

When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about multiple revokes on a board applies.

Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? (In the latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.)

I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we are interested in comments.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

Surely this is just a question of reading from the relevant Law?

Law64B2 said:

No Rectification

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:
if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply.

So, this is not two related revokes.

Law64B7 said:

No Rectification

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:
when both sides have revoked on the same board.

So, the WBF minute on multiple revokes, now in the Law book, does not apply.

You have two revokes and no reason to relate them. So each revoke is a one-trick penalty, assuming there are tricks to transfer, and two tricks are transferred if so.

The first rule for simple book rulings is:

READ BOOK RULINGS FROM THE BOOK.

[Ant590]

Hey, this is the simple rulings forum... seems like big blue shouting is a little bit of an overkill?

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Aug 6 2009, 06:23 AM, said:

The first rule for simple book rulings is:

READ BOOK RULINGS FROM THE BOOK.

Not everybody owns a law book. And not everybody knows how to read it. That is why we have this forum.

Rik

[gordontd]

Pale yellow text on a pale blue background is completely unreadable.

[Echognome]

This discussion brings back a bitter memory from when I played in England. I played once in a team match where I was in a difficult contract (that turned out could not be made with the actual lie of the cards). I played a card from hand and LHO showed out (which was surprising given the bidding), then I called for a card from dummy, who detached it and played it. Then RHO showed out (which was obviously more surprising). Now I called for the next card from dummy and RHO realized what had happened and said we had a problem. There was no TD around, so we had to call for a ruling. The full hand was relayed to the TD over the phone and he spoke to both team captains and asked to speak to my LHO, RHO, and dummy. He never spoke to me. The opponents claim was that they heard me call for a different suit, despite the fact that I had physically played the card from my hand and dummy had physically played the card. If either revoke had become established, then I would make my contract and we would win the match.

The TD thought about it for awhile and determined... that he could not make a judgment on the board and we would have to reshuffle and replay it. We lost.

[cherdanno]

I would rule that the defender who revoked first has to go and get coffee (two of them).

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on Aug 6 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Pale yellow text on a pale blue background is completely unreadable.

I am sorry. I tried to whisper. Shhh, don't tell anybody. Another little secret: You can make the text easier to read by selecting it with your mouse.

Rik

[bluejak]

Echognome, on Aug 6 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

This discussion brings back a bitter memory from when I played in England.  I played once in a team match where I was in a difficult contract (that turned out could not be made with the actual lie of the cards).  I played a card from hand and LHO showed out (which was surprising given the bidding), then I called for a card from dummy, who detached it and played it.  Then RHO showed out (which was obviously more surprising).  Now I called for the next card from dummy and RHO realized what had happened and said we had a problem.  There was no TD around, so we had to call for a ruling.  The full hand was relayed to the TD over the phone and he spoke to both team captains and asked to speak to my LHO, RHO, and dummy.  He never spoke to me.    The opponents claim was that they heard me call for a different suit, despite the fact that I had physically played the card from my hand and dummy had physically played the card.  If either revoke had become established, then I would make my contract and we would win the match.

The TD thought about it for awhile and determined... that he could not make a judgment on the board and we would have to reshuffle and replay it.  We lost.

This is very unfortunate. While rulings over the phone are more difficult, that does not mean they shoud not be given to the best of the TD's ability. Of course where facts are concerned talking to only three of the players is wrong.

[Echognome]

David,

I agree with you. I would have accepted being ruled against more readily than having the TD throw his hands up in the air and say "I can't decide, so play another board." Of course, I would have been disappointed to be ruled against, but I would have lived with it.

As per the not talking to me, I found it incredulous. The opposition claimed they misunderstood, because of my accent. I think it would have been wise for the TD to talk to me to assess the validity of that claim. I still don't understand how one couldn't hear the distinction between Spade, Heart, Diamond, and Club. They all sound very different. Finally, I want to note that dummy was also british, so his only advantage in understanding my accent was that we had spoken several times before.

But heck. Bad rulings happen. You just shrug and move on (and vent to the forums later).

-Gnome

[peachy]

Echognome, on Aug 6 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

This discussion brings back a bitter memory from when I played in England. I played once in a team match where I was in a difficult contract (that turned out could not be made with the actual lie of the cards). I played a card from hand and LHO showed out (which was surprising given the bidding), then I called for a card from dummy, who detached it and played it. Then RHO showed out (which was obviously more surprising). Now I called for the next card from dummy and RHO realized what had happened and said we had a problem. There was no TD around, so we had to call for a ruling. The full hand was relayed to the TD over the phone and he spoke to both team captains and asked to speak to my LHO, RHO, and dummy. He never spoke to me. The opponents claim was that they heard me call for a different suit, despite the fact that I had physically played the card from my hand and dummy had physically played the card. If either revoke had become established, then I would make my contract and we would win the match.

The TD thought about it for awhile and determined... that he could not make a judgment on the board and we would have to reshuffle and replay it. We lost.

This TD needs to be educated. He cannot just refuse to give a ruling.