Revoke
Was recently playing in a Club championsip competition, teams event over several weeks. On one hand recently, at trick 6 my right hand opponent revoked,not winning the trick.they won subsequent tricks .At the end of the hand,I drew attention to the revoke.”What happens now” asked the partner of the revoker.My partner advised that there would normally be one trick transferred to the non= offending side.I was in a vulnerable 3D contract,one down.The one trick transfer would mean I made the contract.The immediate response was that this was ridiculous ,the penalty far outweighed the unintended revoke.The Non- playing director was very close to our table dealing with another issue and we were able politely and correctly to call him to the table.There was some discussion whether there had been a revoke but we established that this was the case.The non revoker was most unhappy with the one trick ruling but was told get on with the game.After Director left table he( complainant)was shaking with rage,reiterating his perceived injustice.He suggested that I was being most unethical,lacking sportsmanship and ungentlemanly. His behaviour was really very bad and I recalled the Director to the table.This was not an easy situation for the Director and he reiterated more firmly the earlier advice.
Rightly or wrongly I opted not to make a formal complaint to the club about the opponent’s behaviour.He continues to infer my approach ( his view of MY unsportsmanlike - like behaviour) was not the done thing.if he had been declarer he would have apologised that the ruling was unjust and foregone the one trick penalty. He would not seek to take advantage of a more beneficial result through no good play of his own as a result of an unintended revoke.
There is clearly a very different view between us.Apart from anything else,it is my view that there is no provision within the rules for the non offending side to request such action after the director’s ruling.
I am keen to draw a line under it all .what I am now proposing is a letter to the club secretary setting out the situation.there will be a suggestion from me that the club should possibly get the situation on revokes clarified and give advice to the club directors .Also,some general comments to go on the club’s website.
It is more about trying to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.
Without entering into a contentious discussion,any advice/ comment much appreciated.
I hasten to add that there is certainly no criticism on my part at the Director’s approach. In my view he handled a very difficult situation admirably.
The oppponent involved does direct at the club and it would not really be a good move if in the future he was called to the table in a revoke situation and gave a different ruling to the EBU rules and guidance.
Hard to believe that a “ simple” revoke can escalate to such an extent.
Comments
Bridge is a game, with rules and consequences for breaching those rules, even if unintentionally. I'm not sure why your opponent has difficulty understanding this, especially if he acts as a director.
I have seen such an escalation in this situation before, with one of the players ending in hospital with a (relatively mild) heart attack.
The issue here seems to be that he disagreed with the consequence of the ruling, not with the ruling itself. So clarification of the revoke rules will not help.
As Gordon said:
Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling.
Although sadly a significant number do not.
But it does clarify that I as declarer had no power whatsoever to influence waiving the penalty.The suggestion that I was unethical,ungentlemanly and unsportsmanlike was very much out of order.
Agreed.
In your position I would try to get him to understand, and if I could not I would raise a complaint. If bad behaviour is not dealt with it becomes worse behaviour.
But I'm not you and it's not my club.
Incidentally (and for completeness sake), Law 81C5 does allow the director "to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side", although I would not consider "it's unfair" as an acceptable cause.
Indeed.