[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-26, 06:57, said:

You end it when you like. I have given an opinion. You have made various comments that have nothing to do with that opinion. My opinion stands.

Please enlighten me with an answer to just one simple question:

Exactly which deviation from correct procedure (Law reference please) occurs when an already committed revoke becomes established?

[bluejak]

You have not corrected a revoke. Of course, if you wish to go on being obtuse and talking irrelevant Law numbers, feel free, but that has got nothing to do with it.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2010-December-26, 13:24, said:

You have not corrected a revoke. Of course, if you wish to go on being obtuse and talking irrelevant Law numbers, feel free, but that has got nothing to do with it.

To the best of my (admittedly limited) ability I am not able to come up with a Law that requires a player to correct a revoke that he is not aware of. Nor can I come up with a Law that states that it is an irregularity to "not correct a revoke that one isn't aware of".

Causal logic says that the following two statements are equivalent:

- If "not correcting a revoke that one isn't aware of" is an irregularity then there must be such a Law.
- If there is no such Law, then "not correcting a revoke that one isn't aware of" is not an irregularity.
(NOT A => NOT B is equivalent to B => A)

If you are so sure about the statement you make, it should be easy to point us to the relevant Law, whether positive (stating that correcting is required, even if one isn't aware) or negative (stating that not correcting is an irregularity, even if one isn't aware).

Restating "You have not corrected a revoke." is not very helpful. We are all aware that we are discussing a not corrected revoke. The questions, however, are: 1) "Is it an irregularity when you don't correct a revoke (that you are not aware of)?" and 2) "Why is that so?" (which translates to "What Law(s) did you break by not correcting a revoke (that you were not aware of)?"). It is clear that you answered "Yes" to question 1. I am interested to hear your answer to question 2.

Rik

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-26, 13:24, said:

You have not corrected a revoke. Of course, if you wish to go on being obtuse and talking irrelevant Law numbers, feel free, but that has got nothing to do with it.

I honestly try to figure out how you can assert that having an already committed revoke become established is an irregularity. How Laws 62A and 63A together with the definition of irregularity can be irrelevant in this respect is beyond me. (My historical references were just to show that the distinction between Laws 9A3 and 61B must have been intentional all the time. Knowing the evolution history very often helps understanding the present situation.)

Let me just add one more (very relevant) quotation to the case: Law 61B "Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke" uses the verb "may ask" for which the introduction to the laws states: "failure to do it is not wrong"

Trinidad, on 2010-December-26, 13:55, said:

To the best of my (admittedly limited) ability I am not able to come up with a Law that requires a player to correct a revoke that he is not aware of. Nor can I come up with a Law that states that it is an irregularity to "not correct a revoke that one isn't aware of".

Causal logic says that the following two statements are equivalent:

- If "not correcting a revoke that one isn't aware of" is an irregularity then there must be such a Law.
- If there is no such Law, then "not correcting a revoke that one isn't aware of" is not an irregularity.
(NOT A => NOT B is equivalent to B => A)

If you are so sure about the statement you make, it should be easy to point us to the relevant Law, whether positive (stating that correcting is required, even if one isn't aware) or negative (stating that not correcting is an irregularity, even if one isn't aware).

Restating "You have not corrected a revoke." is not very helpful. We are all aware that we are discussing a not corrected revoke. The questions, however, are: 1) "Is it an irregularity when you don't correct a revoke (that you are not aware of)?" and 2) "Why is that so?" (which translates to "What Law(s) did you break by not correcting a revoke (that you were not aware of)?"). It is clear that you answered "Yes" to question 1. I am interested to hear your answer to question 2.

Rik

Thanks, at least one person who understands the "problem" (which really is no problem). And I feel pretty certain the reason why we get no relevant law supporting Bluejak's opinion is that there is no such law.

[dburn]

If dummy may legally enquire of declarer whether or not he has revoked, then if dummy does so, declarer must correct the revoke if he has in fact committed one.

Of course, it is not mandatory for dummy to ask declarer whether or not he has revoked - but dummy may do so in order, as bluejak says, to prevent declarer committing the irregularity of failing to correct the revoke once he becomes aware of it. The fact that he would not have become aware of it if dummy has not asked does not matter.

[pran]

dburn, on 2010-December-26, 18:21, said:

If dummy may legally enquire of declarer whether or not he has revoked, then if dummy does so, declarer must correct the revoke if he has in fact committed one.

Of course, it is not mandatory for dummy to ask declarer whether or not he has revoked - but dummy may do so in order, as bluejak says, to prevent declarer committing the irregularity of failing to correct the revoke once he becomes aware of it. The fact that he would not have become aware of it if dummy has not asked does not matter.

Sure, there is absolutely no disagreement about this. (Failing to correct a revoke once the offender becomes aware of it is a violation of Law 72B3, but not becoming aware of a revoke in progress is no irregularity.)

The point that started this part of the discussion is that the reason for Law 61B has nothing to do with "attempting to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity" (Law 9A3); the irregularity has in case already been comitted. The reason for the provision in Law 61B is to allow a player limiting the consequences of one particular kind of irregularity.

The difference may seem immaterial but is important enough for the provision in Law 61B to always having been maintained completely separated from the provision in Law 9A3 even after the latter was introduced (at least eight years later).

The effect is of course that establishing a revoke is not an irregularity; the irregularity is the revoke itself.

[barmar]

Right. Dburn's logic is circular: Not correcting the revoke after becoming aware of it is an infraction, so dummy can try to prevent that. But until dummy inquires, declarer isn't in danger of committing that infraction.

So while I suspect the inspiration for the two Laws may be similar, they're not tied together directly.

[dburn]

barmar, on 2010-December-27, 10:23, said:

Right. Dburn's logic is circular: Not correcting the revoke after becoming aware of it is an infraction, so dummy can try to prevent that. But until dummy inquires, declarer isn't in danger of committing that infraction.

So while I suspect the inspiration for the two Laws may be similar, they're not tied together directly.

Oh, it isn't my "logic" - I didn't write the Laws. If I had done, no one would be allowed to ask anyone about a possible revoke, and I can see no "logical" reason why anyone should be allowed to ask anyone anyway. As I have remarked elsewhere, the penalty for a revoke should be death, so that the tendency to revoke would be eliminated on Darwinian principles and we would not need so many stupid Laws.

But Sven seems to me to have overlooked Law 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." True, a player must not attempt to conceal a revoke (Law 72B3), but Law 62A is stronger in that it refers to positions in which the player may have become aware of a revoke by means that would be considered "extraneous" per Law 16. That is: if declarer revokes by ruffing or discarding on a spade lead, and a passing waiter (or a passing Director) says "you have a spade", declarer must correct his revoke per Law 62A whether or not the information that he has revoked is authorized.

Since the penalty for an established revoke is more severe than a penalty for an unestablished revoke (indeed, declarer is not "penalized" at all for the latter), and since dummy may ask declarer "having none?" there is no real difficulty except in Sven's mind. He will "honestly try to figure out how you can assert that having an already committed revoke become established is an irregularity", but of course it is.

To address a point made by campboy: the reason dummy cannot ask a defender "having none?" is that dummy may not participate in the play nor suggest to declarer anything about the play. Dummy, who may well be aware that a defender has just discarded a diamond on a heart, is not permitted to draw the fact to the attention of a somnolent declarer who may not have noticed. In this best of all possible worlds it is not the case that dummies are altruists, whereas it is usually the case that altruists are dummies.

[campboy]

I am not sure we are discussing the same point.

Laws 42B1 and 62B2 explicitly give dummy the right to enquire about a possible revoke by declarer. If these laws did not exist, do you believe he would still have that right as a consequence of the current law 42B2?

[pran]

campboy, on 2010-December-28, 04:36, said:

I am not sure we are discussing the same point.

Laws 42B1 and 62B2 explicitly give dummy the right to enquire about a possible revoke by declarer. If these laws did not exist, do you believe he would still have that right as a consequence of the current law 42B2?

He would definitely not have had such right; in fact his question would be a clear violation of Law 43A1{c} (and also of Law 42B3!)

[mycroft]

dburn, on 2010-December-24, 23:11, said:

I have never been quite sure of the rights and obligations of a defender in this kind of position.

Suppose for example that I (East) know the layout but my partner does not (comments from my partners such as "fat chance of that" will be ignored).

South leads from dummy when he should have led from his hand.

I perceive that this is a mistake, because South could have made the contract by leading from his hand but not by leading from dummy.

Is West allowed per Law 16 to draw any inference from the fact that I actively accept the lead from dummy (as by saying "you're actually in hand, but I'm going to play second to this trick"), rather than from my simply playing second to the trick? If I do simply play second to the trick, is West allowed per Law 16 to draw the inference that I don't care, else I would have actively accepted the lead from dummy?

In the ACBL, we are taught that although most people use "You're in your hand" as "you've led from the wrong hand, *and* I don't accept it", what it *means* is "you've violated Law 44G, and I'm drawing attention to that." - so partner (or the noticer) can accept. Law 53A says "either defender...accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made by the hand next in rotation.", so either way goes. It's certainly UI that he *chose to mention it* rather than either accepting by playing or just playing "in turn", and I think this would be ruled the same way as an agreement that accepting an insufficient bid by just bidding over it is different from calling the TD, then accepting it. In the ACBL (again), those agreements are not allowed, so here, no. It's more liberal in England, but I don't know the regulation offhand.

Quote

Once, I had a queen in front of dummy's king-jack. Declarer led towards the king-jack, and I played low slowly to give my partner time to object to declarer's lead from the wrong hand. He didn't object, so declarer went up with the king and screamed blue murder when partner won the ace. Did I do wrong?

I might have mentioned lead from the wrong hand, and called the TD, who would tell me that either I or my partner could accept, (rest of spiel omitted), then waiting to see if partner wanted to accept. On the other hand, I think "it wasn't my turn to play" is about as "demonstrable bridge reason" for not playing as there is... But, "this is no *****"? Declarer really led out of turn, and then complained that you hitched without the Ace? That's a new variation on the Sominex coup to me.

[Edit - wow, I triggered an autoprofanity filter? And I used the supposedly proper U.S. Army version, as opposed to the one I always heard, "no ****, there I was" (I assume British/Canadian military?)]