Revoke (64c1 and b2)
Law 64C
2. (a) After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred.
(B2. it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, the first revoke having been established).
I have two questions, the first on an explanation of the Rules and the second on what is done in practice (at (friendly) Club level).
The situation was that Declarer (playing in 4 Spades) Revoked twice by twice trumping opponents Hearts when she had two Hearts in her hand and then on the 12th and 13th trick those 2 Hearts were winners.
First question: the Rules say (B2) ‘it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, the first revoke having been established’ . . . . is this saying that there should be no 2nd trick penalty if both Revokes were in the same suit?
Second question: in Revokes it is often the case that offender is left with a card which they should not have and opponents have played a card which they did not need to play and the argument is that opponents were disadvantaged by that situation and clearly when players have cards or have spent cards which should not have been the dynamics change and opponents likely do have some degree of loss and Rule 64C1 caters for this . . . . my question is, how do you deal with that at the table?
Comments
I think this is very difficult for playing directors as it takes time to determine what has happened and then to analyse the consequences in terms of damage done to the non-offending side.
Practically, once all cards have been played, I've known the TD to have all players turn their quit tricks face up and the TD take a picture of all the cards for later analysis. Once the TD has worked out whether 64 C. or the other provisions of 64 provides the non offending side with the better result they can adjust the score accordingly. Clearly the TD can ask for advice from senior players not involved in the irregularity.
You don't give a second penalty for the second revoke in the same suit, but you do, in equity, consider what would have happened if the first revoke had occurred and been penalised, but the second revoke had not occurred.
So in your case you not only consider what would have happened with no revoke, but also with one heart being ruffed (and penalised) but declarer followed to the second heart.
Roger sums up a good approach. I'd usually say to score the hand with the 2 trick penalty for the first revoke in the first instance, with the caveat that you might adjust it according to law 64 later (as Gordon points out, you need to consider the position if there is one revoke but not the second. )
Then take a photo or note the play of the hand quickly, work through the play in a quiet moment, possibly with the aid of a printout. For most revokes you can quickly rule out whether or not there's been further damage, if it is a more complicated case take the time to work through it.
Thanks for the helpful replies
Thinking about this and fact that whenever there is a Revoke there MUST be a situation where the offender is left with a card which they should not have and opponents will often have played a card which they might not have chosen to play there must always be the possibility that that the opponents were disadvantaged by that situation and the question that follows is . . . . why would we photograph and do a ‘post-mortem’ on just those hands where there is a protest / is it fair that we would just do a ‘post-mortem’ on those Revoke hands where opponents protest or to be fair, should we do a ‘post-mortem’ examination on all Revoke hands (or none)?
Well, usually we're confident enough that the one / two trick penalty will suffice that we don't need to do a detailed post mortem. And, generally speaking, it's sufficiently clear there might have been further damage that there's some kind of complaint. But you're quite right that we should always check.
Certainly the possibility should always be mentioned so that players are in a position to consider it.