[billyjef]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-20, 10:05, said:

This doesn't make it a requirement, it just says it's not unethical to do it.

Barry may be thinking of this regulation:

The history of laws making revokes illegal is somewhat interesting...originally to officially make it illegal to intentionally revoke/cheat. Then automatic reward of tricks had to be instituted (and reconfigured a few times) because some people realized that they could 'accidentally' revoke and throw a wrench into equity because it was often too hard to figure out what would happen if the revoke didn't happen...thus automatic trick rewards...this OP validates how difficult it is sometime to resolve equitably such situations even with current laws and the multiple paths created by whatifs.

Now I hear people telling newcomers to not draw attention to a revoke so that you can get a free trick as a reward, which IMO, is against the spirit of the laws and the revoke laws.

Yes there is a loophole in the law that can be legally exploited, does that mean we are required to exploit. I, personally, don't find enjoyment winning in such manner even if it is lawful.

What I hear some saying though, and correct me if I am wrong (as if you wouldn't ) is that it is illegal for me as declarer to call attention to revoke if I can know that not calling attention to it would give me an extra trick I never would have gotten otherwise, and inflating my score against the field?

Yeah! for online bridge which resolves this messy dilemma!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-20, 10:05, said:

Quote

Law 10C3: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.

This doesn't make it a requirement, it just says it's not unethical to do it.

How should the Director be supposed to handle inferior play by a contestant if this were an infraction of law or of a requirement based on law?

[blackshoe]

billyjef, on 2018-November-20, 12:42, said:

The history of laws making revokes illegal is somewhat interesting...originally to officially make it illegal to intentionally revoke/cheat. Then automatic reward of tricks had to be instituted (and reconfigured a few times) because some people realized that they could 'accidentally' revoke and throw a wrench into equity because it was often too hard to figure out what would happen if the revoke didn't happen...thus automatic trick rewards...this OP validates how difficult it is sometime to resolve equitably such situations even with current laws and the multiple paths created by whatifs.

Now I hear people telling newcomers to not draw attention to a revoke so that you can get a free trick as a reward, which IMO, is against the spirit of the laws and the revoke laws.

Yes there is a loophole in the law that can be legally exploited, does that mean we are required to exploit. I, personally, don't find enjoyment winning in such manner even if it is lawful.

What I hear some saying though, and correct me if I am wrong (as if you wouldn't ) is that it is illegal for me as declarer to call attention to revoke if I can know that not calling attention to it would give me an extra trick I never would have gotten otherwise, and inflating my score against the field?

Yeah! for online bridge which resolves this messy dilemma!

I haven't heard anyone telling anyone not to draw attention to a revoke.

You're wrong. No one is saying that. And even with the (ACBL) regulation that I mentioned, no director worth his salt is going to rule that a declarer didn't play to win by not calling attention to a revoke. Even if said declarer admits that he knew that a defender had revoked.

[billyjef]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-20, 17:40, said:

I haven't heard anyone telling anyone not to draw attention to a revoke.

You're wrong. No one is saying that. And even with the (ACBL) regulation that I mentioned, no director worth his salt is going to rule that a declarer didn't play to win by not calling attention to a revoke. Even if said declarer admits that he knew that a defender had revoked.

Wrong way around, it sounded as if some were trying to imply that it was against the laws for a declarer to call attention to revoke before it was established because by calling attention to the revoke, they'd be giving up an automatic trick reward

[blackshoe]

Well, it's not. :-)