Claimed Revoke, Director called rather late.
I was called to a table (I was playing director and had not played the board concerned). After the play on a board was completed declarer claimed a defender had revoked but one of the opponents did not agree and the other (playing peacemaker) was inclined to accept. The defenders cards had been put back before I was called and the atmosphere at table was frosty to say the least!
Since the cards were not all available, there was not entirely satisfactory agreement as to whether or not a revoke had happened I was inclined to rule no penalty on the basis that I had not been called to table timely.
Comments
Not only was the call for the TD in time for a ruling, but it was also in time, under Law 64B4, for an automatic trick adjustment under Law 64A. The only sensible way to try to determine whether a revoke had happened, once some players had shuffled their cards, is to attempt to recreate the play of the hand.
It is not unusual for players not to notice a revoke by a defender, and at the end of play declarer makes fewer tricks than he expected, and realises or suspects that a defender revoked.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
If you can't come to a satisfactory conclusion, rule against the person who mixed up their cards.
From what you describe, the declaring side still had their cards in place on the table, which should help a lot with recreating the play, as Barrie describes. As Gordon suggests, if they can't agree on the play then it's a revoke for no better reason than that the defenders put their hands away before agreeing to a result, unless there obviously wasn't a revoke.
I'd also advise players not to put their hands away before agreeing to the number of tricks made.
I'd further add that when I am called to a frosty table, I try to be firm with any rudeness. I've even been known to suggest that the next person to interrupt gets a penalty.
We don't know from the OP whether a result had been agreed before defenders mixed their cards. It is very possible that declarer had agreed the result and then thought something wrong and that there may well have been a revoke. In such case, there is great incentive to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
"Making 9" says I, "well done".
All agreed, cards shuffled and returned to the board. Score entered into a tablet by declarer and accepted by me.
Then, "how many hearts did you have?" was asked of me. "4" says I. "Ah, then you must have revoked. Director please!"
Now, as a new player I had no chance of remembering the order of play or even the 13th trick. What should have happened here? Our director said if you all agree, correct it. I stuck to my guns and said I dont agree... move was called and the result stood.
Should the director have attempted to recreate the play of the hand? As a new player I would have been at a distinct disadvantage in that discussion, but maybe declarer was right and I had revoked...
Good point.
It's a good challenge for the TD to decide whether he believes "I don't remember how the play went" or not.
We had a case where we believed we had made 12 tricks; the opposing side entered 11 tricks made into the Bridgemate but we didn't see until after the cards had been shuffled and put away.
When we called the director, we could tell him how we believed the the play went. He asked the other side, who said "I don't remember". The other pair had frequently played Open bridge for their country (not England) and were famous for their dubious ethics (subsequently found to have cheated in other ways). The TD rapidly ruled making 12 tricks.