[McBruce]

I don't have the exact hand for you; in any case it is not relevant. The incident took place at an ACBL Unit Championship game, which is a level between club games and local tournaments.

North was declarer in 4♣ doubled (vulnerable). The opening lead was a spade and he ruffed it in hand, then played along cross-ruff lines for several tricks. Near the end of play declarer was found to have three cards remaining while everyone else had two and I was called to the table. It was immediately apparent that once the problem was discovered, the players had already examined two or three tricks back and discovered that the problem was earlier: the preceding two or three tricks all had one card from each player in them. This put us into Law 67B territory, and I told the players to slowly go through the play from trick one.

This proved to be quite difficult. There were several disputes over what had taken place and all four players seemed to be on different speeds, too fast in some cases for me to follow; in fact, the only thing keeping me from losing track completely was that the declarer would also get one or two tricks behind and the defenders and dummy would ask him to catch up. Eventually, we somehow got back to the same position we were originally at: declarer with three left, defenders and dummy with two. Declarer was clutching these three cards to his chest and refusing to show them until I asked to see them.

One of these cards was a spade, the suit he had ruffed in hand at trick one.

I had a difficult time keeping my composure as I explained the gross impropriety of concealing a revoke. The board was scored as down three (with a revoke penalty) for 800 and a bottom, and I felt I had to consider an extra penalty on top of this. I was later told, when discussing it privately with other players (before deciding what extra penalty to give), that the dummy had asked declarer to confirm that he had no spades at trick one; declarer confirmed having no spades. It thus seemed almost certain that the player had discovered the spade in his hand after trick one was finished, but also that he had discovered this well before my arrival or before the problem with the number of cards remaining was noticed. I find it difficult to believe that he deliberately ruffed at trick one. I also find it difficult to believe that when he was asked to show his last three cards, he didn't realize that one of them was a spade: there was no surprise at that point, and there was also the evidence that he was 'dragging his feet' during the replay.

I chose half of a top as a procedural penalty here, twice the normal PP. Too low? Too high? Just right?

[Bbradley62]

I'm usually a "throw the book at him" advocate, but I don't like this one. It should be the defenders' responsibility to figure out that declarer revoked and declarer should just play his cards as if nothing wrong had happened. It is perfectly reasonable that he "was clutching these three cards to his chest and refusing to show them until I asked to see them"; as long as he showed them to you when you asked, what's the problem? I don't even think that you should have mentioned the fact of the revoke unless/until one of the defenders pointed it out.

Was no other part of this hand affected by the fact that they (apparently) were playing with a 53-card deck?

[TimG]

There is a difference between letting the defenders figure it out and actively concealing it. McBruce 's impression is clearly that declarer was actively concealing the revoke, I think we have to accept that. Given the active attempt to conceal, I don't think the procedural penalty was out of line.

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-18, 12:04, said:

I don't even think that you should have mentioned the fact of the revoke unless/until one of the defenders pointed it out.

Under Law 81C3 a TD is required to deal with a revoke that comes to his attention, however it comes to his attention.

[campboy]

The relevant law is 72B3:

Quote

A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

If the TD judges that the player was deliberately concealing a card involved in a revoke, a PP seems pretty mandatory and I wouldn't argue with a double one. ACBL PPs are much larger than I am used to, though.

[blackshoe]

They are pretty large. That might be why so many TDs here are reluctant to give them.

[McBruce]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-18, 12:04, said:

I'm usually a "throw the book at him" advocate, but I don't like this one. It should be the defenders' responsibility to figure out that declarer revoked and declarer should just play his cards as if nothing wrong had happened. It is perfectly reasonable that he "was clutching these three cards to his chest and refusing to show them until I asked to see them"; as long as he showed them to you when you asked, what's the problem? I don't even think that you should have mentioned the fact of the revoke unless/until one of the defenders pointed it out.

Was no other part of this hand affected by the fact that they (apparently) were playing with a 53-card deck?

They were not. All players had 13 cards. Declarer deliberately muddled the replay in order to hide the fact that he had revoked, hoping apparently for some sort of artificial score which would be better than the big minus he was getting. By the time I began asking him about the three cards he had left, both defenders and dummy were wondering about the strange distribution of the spade suit, and in fact I had to ask him three times before he would show the cards. When he did, there was nothing on the order of "oh dear, that's a spade--I thought it was a club": he had clearly known for some time that he had revoked. It was the defenders who pointed the revoke out once they saw the spade.

Sure, you're not required to disclose during the play that you have revoked, but when the play is reviewed at the beginning of what seems to be trick twelve and you know you have revoked, it's time to plead guilty, because even 007 isn't getting out of this one.

[jeremy69]

Given what you say about his attempt to conceal I think you were spot on with the size of PP.

[blackshoe]

Half a top seems about right. I'm still wondering which trick was defective, though. It sounds like declarer played to a trick and then put the card back in his hand. 67B requires the TD to establish which trick was defective. It doesn't seem to matter much here if he can't, though. Although, if it wasn't the first trick that was defective, he may have actually revoked twice. 64C may come into play.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-19, 09:57, said:

Half a top seems about right. I'm still wondering which trick was defective, though. It sounds like declarer played to a trick and then put the card back in his hand. 67B requires the TD to establish which trick was defective. It doesn't seem to matter much here if he can't, though. Although, if it wasn't the first trick that was defective, he may have actually revoked twice. 64C may come into play.

I think there are a couple more things. [a] the player's insubordination has improperly delayed the game [b] the TD should find a time to ask the player to see him 20 minutes after the game so that he can tell him that the director's most important function is to serve the players, which includes helping them abide by the proprieties....

[Bbradley62]

McBruce, on 2010-December-19, 03:59, said:

They were not. All players had 13 cards. Declarer deliberately muddled the replay in order to hide the fact that he had revoked, hoping apparently for some sort of artificial score which would be better than the big minus he was getting. By the time I began asking him about the three cards he had left, both defenders and dummy were wondering about the strange distribution of the spade suit, and in fact I had to ask him three times before he would show the cards. When he did, there was nothing on the order of "oh dear, that's a spade--I thought it was a club": he had clearly known for some time that he had revoked. It was the defenders who pointed the revoke out once they saw the spade.

Sure, you're not required to disclose during the play that you have revoked, but when the play is reviewed at the beginning of what seems to be trick twelve and you know you have revoked, it's time to plead guilty, because even 007 isn't getting out of this one.

I guess I didn't understand the extent of declarer's actions when I read the initial post. If you're saying that he created the extra-card situation as an attempt to foul the board (here comes my "throw the book at him" self), the applied penalty is appropriate AND declarer should be told that cheating will not be tolerated and a subsequent incident could result in suspension from the club.

[ggwhiz]

Apparently declarer forgot to slip the extra spade card into his pocket and I think you let him off too easy.

A 30 day suspension with a re-admittance exam on ethics seems more like it.

[campboy]

ggwhiz, on 2010-December-19, 15:41, said:

Apparently declarer forgot to slip the extra spade card into his pocket and I think you let him off too easy.

If there is any caviar to hand, of course, a more permanent solution to the extra spade is available.

[gwnn]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-18, 12:04, said:

It should be the defenders' responsibility to figure out that declarer revoked and declarer should just play his cards as if nothing wrong had happened.

Why?

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2010-December-18, 12:04, said:

It should be the defenders' responsibility to figure out that declarer revoked and declarer should just play his cards as if nothing wrong had happened. It is perfectly reasonable that he "was clutching these three cards to his chest and refusing to show them until I asked to see them"; as long as he showed them to you when you asked, what's the problem? I don't even think that you should have mentioned the fact of the revoke unless/until one of the defenders pointed it out.

gwnn said:

Why?

Declarer, having revoked, is not required to point out that he has revoked. He is required to not attempt to conceal the revoke, so when anyone asks to see his remaining cards, he is obligated to show them. And as David has already pointed out, once the TD becomes aware of the revoke, he must deal with it as the laws require.

[bluejak]

As regards penalty size, this one was a bad one, so half a top seems fine.

But if your local ACBL TDs do not give PPs in part because they think a quarter-board seems too harsh - and I agree with them - then have a local rule that the standard PP is an eighth-board - or even England's 10% of a top. The aim is to give them a little slap on the wrist, and 10% has always seemed fine to me.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-19, 18:50, said:

when anyone asks to see his remaining cards, he is obligated .....

I should like to see the text of that law.

[mycroft]

Okay, upon a claim or after the end of the hand, if anyone asks to see the hand for the purposes of ensuring proper procedure has been followed (Law 66D), then.

Of course, the players involved need to be reminded of Laws 62C3 and 66C, and to call the TD *before* trying to figure out what happened. I am surprised how many bridge players, in their determination to prove the revoke before the TD gets involved, break those laws (yes, I know this is defective trick, but still).

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2010-December-20, 07:19, said:

As regards penalty size, this one was a bad one, so half a top seems fine.

But if your local ACBL TDs do not give PPs in part because they think a quarter-board seems too harsh - and I agree with them - then have a local rule that the standard PP is an eighth-board - or even England's 10% of a top. The aim is to give them a little slap on the wrist, and 10% has always seemed fine to me.

And to me.

[McBruce]

My theory is that 1/4 of a top makes for a nice neat number to subtract from the score when the top is 12 or 8. Don't make things too difficult for the club owner, let the tournament TDs figure out what 1/4 of 38 or 26 is...

If the TD feels that 1/4 of a top is too harsh he can simply give a warning. I've done that.