Declarer makes 6 heart. There was a revoke but apponents have A of trump. Should declarer be panelised and given 7?
To me in order for equity to be restored is A of H should be given to opponents. What do you think?
There's an automatic trick penalty of one trick for a revoke that doesn't win the trick and a two-trick penalty if the revoke does win the trick, such penalty to come from tricks won from that trick onwards. If this doesn't restore at least equity to the non-offending side then the director should try to restore equity. If the opponents don't win the trick on which they revoked and don't win any subsequent tricks then there is no automatic penalty. They can't be penalised tricks won prior to the revoke. Note that the automatic penalty is without consideration of equity had the revoke not occurred, which is maybe why it's called a penalty.
If the opponents revoked and didn't win the trick and are to make a subsequent trick, the Ace of trumps in this case, then, yes, they will lose the trick that the Ace will gain. If you made 12 tricks despite the revoke and the Ace won or will win a trick after or on the revoke trick then you will be granted an extra trick, making seven.
I recall reading some advice on a forum. If you have the opening lead in a suit contract at the seven level and you have the ace of trumps, you should cash it on trick one, to prevent partner (or yourself) revoking later in the hand and so losing the trick the ace should surely make. Of course, you still have to hope that partner follows suit on trick one but at least you can ask whether they are void if they don't follow suit.
Revokes are weird because they don't follow the same principles as other adjustments in bridge; instead of trying to restore equity, it's a pure penalty levied against the revoking side for revoking. This leads to bizarre results sometimes (such as when the Ace of Trumps fails to make a trick).
I understand why it's done (less subjectivity in revoke rulings means that that fairly common infraction becomes much faster for Directors to deal with, and after a revoke early in the hand it can be very hard to work out what "would have happened"), but I can also understand why players seem surprised or hard done by when it happens.
It's worth noting that a lead out of turn, the other really common infraction, has a similarly objective penalty (although one expressed in terms of giving the declarer an advantage in the trick 1 play, rather than as an outright trick transfer).
There is another case when the Ace of Trumps can fail to take a trick - it occurs if a player does not play a card to a trick and this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (law 67B). Note that this is deemed to be a revoke and in theory this could mean that NEITHER the ACE NOR THE KING OF TRUMPS takes a trick.
@ais523 said:
Revokes are weird because they don't follow the same principles as other adjustments in bridge; instead of trying to restore equity, it's a pure penalty levied against the revoking side for revoking. This leads to bizarre results sometimes (such as when the Ace of Trumps fails to make a trick).
I understand why it's done (less subjectivity in revoke rulings means that that fairly common infraction becomes much faster for Directors to deal with, and after a revoke early in the hand it can be very hard to work out what "would have happened"), but I can also understand why players seem surprised or hard done by when it happens.
Over successive editions of the Laws there has been a trend more towards restoring equity and away from specific penalties, which in general is a good thing IMO. (Very old editions of the Laws contained things that would be much more bizarre to modern eyes than the occasional perceived harshness of the operation of the revoke law).
I don't think it is possible for the Laws to be drafted in such a way that everything that happens after an infraction is perceived as fair, even if it was possible to agree what was fair in any particular situation. People who think the revoke law operates harshly should be extra careful to adhere to the law which takes precedence over all the others.
The current revoke law is less harsh than its predecessor in one sense: the second trick penalty for winning a subsequent trick with a card that could legally have been played to the revoke trick (e.g. failing to follow to a trump lead and later ruffing something) has gone.
Comments
There's an automatic trick penalty of one trick for a revoke that doesn't win the trick and a two-trick penalty if the revoke does win the trick, such penalty to come from tricks won from that trick onwards. If this doesn't restore at least equity to the non-offending side then the director should try to restore equity. If the opponents don't win the trick on which they revoked and don't win any subsequent tricks then there is no automatic penalty. They can't be penalised tricks won prior to the revoke. Note that the automatic penalty is without consideration of equity had the revoke not occurred, which is maybe why it's called a penalty.
If the opponents revoked and didn't win the trick and are to make a subsequent trick, the Ace of trumps in this case, then, yes, they will lose the trick that the Ace will gain. If you made 12 tricks despite the revoke and the Ace won or will win a trick after or on the revoke trick then you will be granted an extra trick, making seven.
I recall reading some advice on a forum. If you have the opening lead in a suit contract at the seven level and you have the ace of trumps, you should cash it on trick one, to prevent partner (or yourself) revoking later in the hand and so losing the trick the ace should surely make. Of course, you still have to hope that partner follows suit on trick one but at least you can ask whether they are void if they don't follow suit.
Revokes are weird because they don't follow the same principles as other adjustments in bridge; instead of trying to restore equity, it's a pure penalty levied against the revoking side for revoking. This leads to bizarre results sometimes (such as when the Ace of Trumps fails to make a trick).
I understand why it's done (less subjectivity in revoke rulings means that that fairly common infraction becomes much faster for Directors to deal with, and after a revoke early in the hand it can be very hard to work out what "would have happened"), but I can also understand why players seem surprised or hard done by when it happens.
It's worth noting that a lead out of turn, the other really common infraction, has a similarly objective penalty (although one expressed in terms of giving the declarer an advantage in the trick 1 play, rather than as an outright trick transfer).
There is another case when the Ace of Trumps can fail to take a trick - it occurs if a player does not play a card to a trick and this is discovered after both sides have played to the next trick (law 67B). Note that this is deemed to be a revoke and in theory this could mean that NEITHER the ACE NOR THE KING OF TRUMPS takes a trick.
Over successive editions of the Laws there has been a trend more towards restoring equity and away from specific penalties, which in general is a good thing IMO. (Very old editions of the Laws contained things that would be much more bizarre to modern eyes than the occasional perceived harshness of the operation of the revoke law).
I don't think it is possible for the Laws to be drafted in such a way that everything that happens after an infraction is perceived as fair, even if it was possible to agree what was fair in any particular situation. People who think the revoke law operates harshly should be extra careful to adhere to the law which takes precedence over all the others.
The current revoke law is less harsh than its predecessor in one sense: the second trick penalty for winning a subsequent trick with a card that could legally have been played to the revoke trick (e.g. failing to follow to a trump lead and later ruffing something) has gone.