multiple revokes
I am a newly qualified director and occasionally situations arise that I find difficult to resolve - I play when directing. A player had revoked twice, both established. She won the first trick she revoked on but not the second. None of my director colleagues could agree on how to deal with multiple revokes, whilst my mentor suggested I treat each revoke individually.
My query is should I transfer 2 tricks to opponents and adjust the score or 3 tricks. My mentor believes that you may transfer as many tricks as applicable and he has had occasions when 5 tricks were transferred. Is this correct in your opinion(s)?
I am in Australia but the rules are the same, however I would like to add that stop cards are not used here.
elizabeth
Comments
Hi, Sheba,
Welcome to the EBU forums. Your post might have been better on the TD forum here, and maybe one of the administrators might move it there. But you ask a good question....
The Laws are world-wide, but they delegate certain functions such as bidding boxes, written bidding and Stop cards to Regulating Authorities such as the ABF and EBU.
You are right that you consider each revoke separately, and you start with the first revoke first.
It was established and the offending hand won the trick, so that trick is transferred plus a further trick if the offending side subsequently won another trick. Law 64A1 covers that.
Onto the second revoke. Was the second revoke a further failure to follow to the same suit? If so, and this tends to be the case, then we need Law 64B2 which says that there is no automatic trick adjustment.
If the second revoke was a failure to follow to a different suit (and I don't think I've ever come across this), then there is just a one trick transfer as the offending hand didn't win this trick, and that's as long as there is a subsequent trick won by the offending side that we can actually transfer.
Finally, we check for equity using Law 64C1 and Law 64C2a to make sure the non-offending side is not damaged even after all the tricks we have transferred!
I suspect that if your "mentor" has transferred 5 tricks on occasion, it may have been under much earlier versions of the Laws (which get updated every 10 years and used to be more draconian), or that he has had to restore equity after a revoke has cut declarer off from a long running suit.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Thanks for your reply, it is most informative. Sheba is my login name (my favourite dog). I enjoy reading the comments each week. I found the forum when watching Gordon Rainsford TD videos. I have not found a similar forum in Australia.
elizabeth
_
Hi Barrie.
If the second revoke is in a different suit, completely unconnected with the first revoke, and the offending side wins a trick after the second revoke, would the one trick transfer for the second revoke be in addition to the two trick transfers for the first revoke? Three tricks in all?
I think it would depend...
lets say revoke 1 happens at trick 5 and they won that trick
revoke 2 happens at trick 9 and they didnt win that trick
They won a later trick
Lets say that defense only won 2 tricks, the revoke and 1 more (lets say trick 13) - clearly we only transfer 2 tricks only as more would make 14 trick.
Presumably the same trick cannot be transferred more than once?
Lets say from the defense side of things, they won the 1st 3 tricks legitimately. Then revoked on trick 5 and won the revoke.
Then went on to revoke a 2nd time on trick 9, not winning that trick but did go on to win trick 13.
On the face of it, we look at revoke 1 and transfer 2 tricks. Then on revoke 2 we would transfer 1 trick - so 3 in total. However, trick 13 has already been transferred which means that there is no later trick to be transferred for the second revoke and so we only transfer 2 tricks in total.
This is not 100%, but it is my reading of the situation - that the transfer of tricks is the actual changing of the card display for that trick from horizontal to vertical, not just a metaphorical transfer for the scoresheet.
Carrying on from Martin's example:
Revoke on trick 5, won by offender.
Trick 7 won by the offending side.
That calls for the transfer of 2 tricks.
Second revoke, in a different suit, on trick 10, not won by offender.
Trick 13 won by the offending side.
This calls for the transfer of 1 trick.
Do we transfer 3 tricks in all?
Tricks won prior to the revoke are unaffected and are never transferred. I recall once having a trump winner, which would be the setting trick. I watched mine and partner's plays like a hawk, to ensure that we got the trick before either of us could revoke. :)
Multiple revokes in the same suit don't count as extra revokes with regards to automatic transfer penalties. Revokes in another suit are a separate incident and liable to extra automatic trick-transfer penalties. Of course, in either case, the director must assess whether the offending side has gained from the revokes.
One situation I have occasionally mulled over is that a player revokes and then the declarer subsequently claims, making use of the "marked finesse". The defender then comes up with a winning card in the suit, destroying the claim.
If the revoke is established then the TD rules on the claim, possibly giving unexpected tricks to the offending side, then the TD applies the revoke penalty for the established revoke and then if necessary the TD adjusts under Law 64C1 if declarer would have made more tricks without the revoke and the losing marked finesse.
If instead, declarer claims immediately after the revoke, the revoke is not established. The revoke is corrected and play ceases - because of the claim. The TD rules on the outcome of the hand with doubtful points decided in favour of the claimer (against the revoke) - there are marks in TD exams for find the right reference to support this!
Law 70A? The Director has to resolve the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, which probably involves taking the revoke into account.
I also note that correcting the revoke in this situation would create a major penalty card. The Laws seem unclear on whether exploiting the penalty card in question can be part of declarer's hypothetical strategy after the claim; I'm guessing yes, but am not sure.
>
How about Law12 A 1 & 2 , backed up by Law 12 B1.
CMOT_Dibbler
Hi there,
In case that isn't clear - the 'one trick transfer' is in addition to the 'two trick transfer', not instead of.
Something that isn't clear to me.
The trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player19, at the end of
the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non‐offending side
together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side.
"and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player19 then, if
the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred
to the non‐offending side."
Suppose the first revoke was on trick 3 and the revoking side won it.
The revoking side won trick 4
The revoking side revoked again on trick 5 but did not win it.
The revoking side won trick 10
Which tricks do we transfer? Suppose the director chooses to transfer trick 3 and trick 10 because of the 1st revoke. Then there is no automatic penalty for the 2nd revoke (because trick 4 occurred before the second revoke). However if the director chooses to transfer trick 3 and trick 4 then there IS another trick transferred because it came later (trick 10).> @CMOT_Dibbler said:
Law 84D
D. Director’s Option
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non‐offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non‐offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).
And yes it took me quite a while to find it.
Does Law 84D override Law 70A as to which way to rule on doubtful points?
As far was we know, the only authority to rule in favour of the claimer is a WBFLC minute from 2000 (quoted in the White Book, 8.63.1)
Yes - but 84D also includes the words "He seeks to restore Equity" - which can be interpreted as resolving doubtful matters in favour of the NOS - especially as the TD cannot award a weighted score in this situation.
Back to weejonnie's question, 'which tricks do we transfer'? Is the Director supposed to decide which one of the succeeding tricks is to be transferred?
If there have been two separate revokes in two different suits and the offending side has won a trick after each revoke, then each of these tricks should qualify separately as being the trick won after the respective revoke. I don't think that the Director can choose to transfer the trick won after the second revoke as the trick won subsequently after the first revoke.
The lawmakers probably didn't envisage a situation like this one!
I don't know, if which tricks we transfer is a doubtful point I guess we resolve it in favour of the non-offending side? Certainly I think any director claiming that trick 10 had already been transferred so the second revoke carried no penalty risks being accused of sophistry.
However I agree about transferring tricks twice, apart from anything else since tricks before the revoke can't be transferred, you end up with more than 13 total tricks that way. And then you'd have to explain how to input that into a bridgemate.
In the case of the claim, the claimer is definitely the non-offending side, since without the revoke there's no claim. So I'm pretty sure you're looking at 84D.
Well, while our sympathies are with the claimer, and he is clearly on the non-offending side with regards to the revoke, he is not of the non-offending side for making what might be considered a faulty claim.
You could be right Tag but as yet we don't know whether a card was played then declarer claimed and then opponent announced "Oh! I have revoked". Declarer could have been told that the opponent had revoked and then said" well it doesn't matter as I am claiming the rest of the tricks anyway" (or similar). If it was the former then there would appear to be damage to declarer because of an irregularity. If the latter then it could be said that declarer acted before resolving an irregularity.
Looking at the introduction to the White book it says " Minutes of their meetings [WBFLC] often contain interpretations and explanations of various laws,". The thing is that the explanation mentioned by Robin is under Law 63 but does not refer to any particular law, nor is it remotely like the Law 63. If the minutes are an "interpretation or explanation" of the laws then surely they should refer to that law that they are using, otherwise it can't be an interpretation or explanation of a law.
CMOT_Dibbler