[Mbodell]

Should there be an adjustment?

Scoring: MP

    1♦*-2♦**-3♣
3♥-3♠-X-3nt
all pass

1♦ was announced as could be short

2♦ was explained as Bailey's showing
55 or better in spades and hearts or spades and clubs.

---

T1 ♠J 4 8 7
T2 ♠3 6 Q 9
T3 ♠K T ♦3 ♠A
T4 ♣A 7 3 2
T5 ♣5 ♥4 ♣K 9

before the next trick is started East says oops! and produces the ♣T and leaves the ♥4 on the table. Declarer tanks for a while and calls director and gets the 4♥ ruled a penalty card and confirms that if East is on lead they will have to play the card but if West is on least declarer can require or forbid the lead of the card.

T6 ♦Q K 9 J

"I forbid hearts"

and a diamond return leads to down 1.

If there is no revoke declarer will run clubs, and then likely plays on diamonds (he can run clubs and lose the hand entry or only play 3 rounds and keep the entry). He will know that east has a stiff or void diamond since he has 55 in the majors and therefore, after showing 2 clubs, will have at most 1 diamond. If it is the K, then down one is made through cashing the A and then the Q. If it is the J then you can make 3 if you run the Q smothering the J. If it is a low spot then playing the Q doesn't cost (you'll be down 2 if west covers), so a good MP line is likely to play 3 or more rounds of clubs and then run the Q and that was my plan. But the 4♥ gave me a way to guarantee no worse than down 1 if east has anything but the K (6-1 favorite) at little cost. Is this something that East could have known would have been damaging when she revoked? Do you adjust to 3nt making?

[qwery_hi]

I don't think it matters what East could have known when the revoke happened. I think the result stands.

[barmar]

This is why I hate that law. It requires us to figure out whether East could have anticipated that you would have a holding that allows you to make that gamble. For all he knows, ducking to west and then prohibiting a ♥ lead would be the best way to make the contract (could this work if you're 3145?).

[barmar]

qwery_hi, on Sep 8 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

I don't think it matters what East could have known when the revoke happened. I think the result stands.

Yes it does.

Quote

LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*.

[Jlall]

lmao, you gotta be kiddin me if you think east is some diabolical bridge genius that figured out you would take a safety play for down 1 by revoking. The play had probably gone pretty quick to this point to, if east figured this all out in normal tempo they are the second coming of the hideous hog and I bow to them.

[Jlall]

I mean no offense, it sucks to get screwed by random stuff like this, but deep down inside do you really think there is some chance that your opponent figured out what the position was, then figured out that if they revoked you would safety play for down 1? Like honestly, do you really feel like that's what might have happened?

It seems to me that looking for a director to direct this is just grasping at straws because you got screwed by bad luck.

[PeterE]

No, this it not a Law 23 case and I won't adjust.

BTW: declarer already knew that East had a stiff diamond at most...

[Mbodell]

Jlall, on Sep 7 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

I mean no offense, it sucks to get screwed by random stuff like this, but deep down inside do you really think there is some chance that your opponent figured out what the position was, then figured out that if they revoked you would safety play for down 1? Like honestly, do you really feel like that's what might have happened?

It seems to me that looking for a director to direct this is just grasping at straws because you got screwed by bad luck.

I am 100% sure that the opponent did not grok this at the time and think it quite likely that this particular opponent did not grok it even after the hand was done. I did not call the director for a ruling and just lol'd at the table and after words and played on (I did call the director for the penalty card but that was the limit of director involvement on this hand).

I am, however, aware of law 23 and while I'd personally never call for a ruling in this situation, I know a few players who definitely would. And I'm curious what some of the more experienced folks at applying law 23 would think of such a claim.

[TimG]

Mbodell, on Sep 7 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

If there is no revoke declarer will run clubs, and then likely plays on diamonds (he can run clubs and lose the hand entry or only play 3 rounds and keep the entry). He will know that east has a stiff or void diamond since he has 55 in the majors and therefore, after showing 2 clubs, will have at most 1 diamond.

Didn't you already know this from the bidding plus first two rounds of clubs?

[bluejak]

Mbodell, on Sep 8 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

Is this something that East could have known would have been damaging when she revoked?

Not really. The theoretician say East knows it could have been that way, but only in the way that if you shoot Kennedy one of his successors will be an ageing film star: Lee H O could have known it as a possibility but has no real reason to suppose it.

Law 23 is to be applied with common sense as well as judgement.

[barmar]

Jlall, on Sep 8 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

lmao, you gotta be kiddin me if you think east is some diabolical bridge genius that figured out you would take a safety play for down 1 by revoking. The play had probably gone pretty quick to this point to, if east figured this all out in normal tempo they are the second coming of the hideous hog and I bow to them.

Law 23 doesn't require that East actually figured it out, it just says that he "could have known" that the infraction would work to his advantage.

But I'm with David, the logic that's used to determine that this would work is way too deep, IMHO. If we rule that this is a case of Law 23, then almost ANY infraction would fall into this, since you can probably come up with some way that it would lead to a gain.

On the other hand, the logic is not totally far-fetched, either. It kind of reminds me of one of those defensive plays where someone plays a higher card than necessary to make declarer think that a finesse in that suit is marked, so he doesn't go after some other suit that WILL work. But the players who pull off these coups are typically world champion calibre, I'm not sure that's the standard that should be applied when judging this law (unless it's in an actual world championship).

[bluejak]

As with any judgement decision, the standard is what the player's peers might do.