[Fluffy]

---

contract 4♠ west leads ♦A, east producing the 10, then ♦K east discards, next another diamond east ruffs and declarer makes all the tricks.

how many tricks for NS?

[blackshoe]

East revoked on the second round of diamonds (Law 61A). The revoke was established when West led a third diamond (Law 63A1). The trick on which East revoked was won by West, not East, so one trick is transferred to NS, because the offending side won the revoke trick (Law 64A2).

[dburn]

Fluffy, on May 18 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

xxx AKxxx 10x QJ9

contract 4♠ west leads ♦A, east producing the 10, then ♦K east discards, next another diamond east ruffs and declarer makes all the tricks.

how many tricks for NS?

Eleven, subject to the Director's view under Law 64C.

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 Code said:

Law 64

When a revoke is established [...]

[...] and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

That deals with East's revoke at trick two.

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 Code said:

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.

That deals with East's revoke at trick three.

I can see no reason why a Director would apply Law 64C to arrive at a different conclusion, but I can see no reason for a number of things Directors do, despite which they do them anyway.

[Fluffy]

david you are quoting 2007 rules, but haven't they changed recently?

[gordontd]

Fluffy, on May 19 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

david you are quoting 2007 rules, but haven't they changed recently?

No

[RMB1]

Fluffy, on May 19 2010, 01:48 PM, said:

david you are quoting 2007 rules, but haven't they changed recently?

The current laws are the "2007" Laws, see www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/2007laws.asp.

The laws were agreed by the WBF LC in late 2007 but there were changes to the index and (notably) to Law 27 early in 2008. Most countries (NBOs) and Zones adopted the new laws between March and November 2008.

[bluejak]

Furthermore, the 2007 Laws are called the "2008 Laws" in the ACBL.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on May 19 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

Furthermore, the 2007 Laws are called the "2008 Laws" in the ACBL.

Time zone differences.

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on May 19 2010, 03:17 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 19 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

Furthermore, the 2007 Laws are called the "2008 Laws" in the ACBL.

Time zone differences.

Lol, and the translation took maybe a couple of years to come to Spain .

[Fluffy]

Another example

contract 4♦X

south is declarer and plays 2 rounds of trumps east discarding on the second round.

next south tries to cash ♥A wich is ruffed by east. Later EW make 4 more tricks.


assuming there was no damage to south missplaying due to the revoke, how many tricks for NS?

[blackshoe]

Two, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if two tricks doesn't restore equity, you adjust the score to however many tricks does restore it.

[billw55]

Fluffy, on May 20 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

Another example

contract 4♦X

south is declarer and plays 2 rounds of trumps east discarding on the second round.

next south tries to cash ♥A wich is ruffed by east. Later EW make 4 more tricks.


assuming there was no damage to south missplaying due to the revoke, how many tricks for NS?

Nobody called the director immediately when the ♥A was ruffed?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on May 20 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

Two, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if two tricks doesn't restore equity, you adjust the score to however many tricks does restore it.

One or other of us is mis-reading the question, because it seems to me that East did not win the revoke trick, and so your answer should have started "One, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if one trick ..."

[blackshoe]

I guess I'm the one who misread it.

[iviehoff]

billw55, on May 20 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

Nobody called the director immediately when the ♥A was ruffed?

Why should anyone bother when it is too late for the revoke to be corrected? It doesn't prejudice anyone's rights to wait until the end of the hand. The only reason for calling now, on either side, would be if you weren't very familiar with the rules on what tricks get transferred, and wanted a statement from the director on those rules, to assist you in planning the future play. There is no obligation on either side to call attention to the revoke at this point, and it might assist the opposition to do so, because they might not have noticed.

[billw55]

iviehoff, on May 21 2010, 02:58 AM, said:

billw55, on May 20 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

Nobody called the director immediately when the ♥A was ruffed? 

Why should anyone bother when it is too late for the revoke to be corrected? It doesn't prejudice anyone's rights to wait until the end of the hand. The only reason for calling now, on either side, would be if you weren't very familiar with the rules on what tricks get transferred, and wanted a statement from the director on those rules, to assist you in planning the future play. There is no obligation on either side to call attention to the revoke at this point, and it might assist the opposition to do so, because they might not have noticed.

As I understand the laws, it is required to call the director when there is an irregularity. Ergo noticing the revoke and failing to call the director is itself a violation. Perhaps I am wrong.

[campboy]

Not quite. You are required to call the attention once someone draws attention to an irregularity (law 9B1), but even if you notice it there is no obligation to draw attention to it. In particular, law 72B2 says that there is no onus on the offending side to point out an accidental revoke that the NOS might not have noticed.

[This does not apply if you revoke and then realise before the revoke is established that you have done so: in that case you are obliged to correct it (L62A).]

[blackshoe]

campboy, on May 21 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Not quite. You are required to call the attention director once someone draws attention to an irregularity (law 9B1)…

Fixed.

[Fluffy]

in the firt case NS make normally 3 tricks, but since there is a revoke they end up getting only 2.

on the second one, EW normally make 4 tricks, due to the revoke they make 5, but later 1 is transfered so only 4, no difference, no penalty in the end.

Why are the cases different?

further more: in the second case, if east notices his revoke, it might be worth it to let it go, win a trick with its trump later and lose the revoke trick, that pay attention, and then have to deal with a major penalty card.

[blackshoe]

Except that is illegal.

Law 62A said:

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

Also, "must" in this law indicates that a violation is a serious matter, so it would almost certainly draw a PP.