[bluejak]

Over the weekend I played in two one-day Green Point events, first Swiss Pairs, second Swiss Teams. The following incident occurred and I should like to hear opinions.

North is playing a spade contract. She leads a heart from dummy, West follows, she ruffs, and East discards a diamond. West says "No hearts, partner?" and East finds a heart, no-one saying anything. She leaves the diamond face-up on the table as a major penalty card and plays the heart.

Two tricks later declarer leads another heart from dummy and ruffs it. Ignoring the major penalty card, the diamond, East over-ruffs to beat the contract. If East discards the contract will make.

At the end of the hand West berates East for not playing her penalty card, while South calls the TD.

The TD asks South why he did not call him earlier: South replies that he was dummy, and no-one drew attention to the revoke so he could not call the TD until the end of the hand.

So, two questions:

• Did "No hearts, partner?" draw attention to the revoke? Could South legally have called the TD when East found a heart?
  
• How do you rule now?

[barmar]

1. The question doesn't, but an answer indicating that she does have a heart does. Silently replacing the diamond with a heart is equivalent to this, IMHO. So South could have called the TD at that point.

2. Seems like a 52B1b situation: Declarer has accepted the non-penalty card by playing to the next trick. No rectification.

[ahydra]

Agree with barmar. And, of course, North (or even East) could call the TD...?

ahydra

[paulg]

I disagree with barmar

No-one has drawn attention to the revoke, Indeed it's not clear that they've all seen it given that no-one said anything.

The question, "No hearts, partner?", does not draw attention to a revoke. It is a question, not a statement. If East had said, "oh yes, I have one", then attention has been drawn to the revoke, but responding with silence and just putting a card on the table does not, imo.

From a practical perspective, expecting South to make such a difficult legal decision at the table is unreasonable. Like most players I do not know the laws to such a level of detail but my gut feel is that incorrectly drawing attention to a revoke when I should not is a bigger offence, and more likely to lose my side its rights, than drawing attention at the end of hand when I should have done so earlier.

As South, if permitted by local regulations, I'd give North a good slapping for not calling the TD.

[blackshoe]

When a player is asked "no hearts?" having played a card of another suit, and then places a heart on the table, that calls attention to an irregularity. Silent or not, it's an affirmative answer to the question. So I'm in Barmar's camp on that.

I agree that dummy has a difficult problem. The consequences of getting it wrong are significantly greater than the advantages, so dummy is understandably leery of calling the director unless he's sure attention has already been called to the irregularity or, in the ACBL, he's sure there's been a ZT violation (according to the usual anonymous phone answerer at ACBL HQ, anyone can call attention to a ZT violation, including dummy). Couple that with TDs who think the law says "dummy cannot call the director" and, well, it's a tough problem.

I'm afraid I agree that Law 52B means that declarer is stuck with East's second revoke. However, I would after explaining this law explain to all concerned that first, the action of replacing the card called attention to the irregularity, second, this means that dummy may (and should if declarer does not) call the director when this happens, third, that all players are responsible for calling the director once attention is drawn to an irregularity, fourth that failure to call the TD is itself an irregularity, and fifth that the next time that happens I will issue PPs to all concerned.

The real question is what, if anything, can be done at the end of the hand. I'm tempted to rule that there was a major PC on the table, that East revoked in not playing it, and then adjust the score under Law 64C. Before doing so, however, I'll consult: does anyone think this ruling is incorrect?

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-02, 08:34, said:

The real question is what, if anything, can be done at the end of the hand. I'm tempted to rule that there was a major PC on the table, that East revoked in not playing it, and then adjust the score under Law 64C. Before doing so, however, I'll consult: does anyone think this ruling is incorrect?

Why do you think 64C is the relevant law and not 52B1b?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-02, 08:34, said:

I'm afraid I agree that Law 52B means that declarer is stuck with East's second revoke. ... I'm tempted to rule that there was a major PC on the table, that East revoked in not playing it, and then adjust the score under Law 64C. Before doing so, however, I'll consult: does anyone think this ruling is incorrect?

Unfortunately it is quite wrong because there were not two revokes. I think you misunderstood what happened. There was only one revoke, which was not established, and then corrected. When the defender failed to play the penalty card, he was not revoking. Rather, he did not have a card of the suit led, either in hand or on the table. In that circumstance, he should have played the penalty card as a discard, rather then using a card from hand (L50D1(a)). Nor is it deemed to be a revoke by law: in fact Law 52 says that if declarer plays on after the defender fails to play the penalty card, there is no rectification.

Barmar is quite right, there is no rectification here. As Paul said, dummy was put in a difficult position: it isn't 100% clear he could have called the director. But it was all happening right in front of declarer's eyes, and by failing to call the director to have his rights asserted, he failed to realise his rights and acquiesced with the opponent's irregularities. If you fail to call the director to assert your rights, you can indeed lose them. Hopefully declarer has now learned this lesson.

[bixby]

There were two revokes. The second revoke occurred when East overruffed instead of playing the MPC. Law 61A, "Definition of a Revoke," provides: "Failure to . . . play, when able, a card or suit required by law . . . constitutes a revoke." So failing to play the MPC at the first legal opportunity, as required by Law 50D, constituted a revoke. The revoke was established when East or West led or played to the next trick.

Law 64B3 provides that there is no retification as in Law 64A (i.e., no automatic transfer of tricks) for "failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table." So there is no automatic transfer of tricks for revoking by failing to play a MPC.

However, Law 64C provides for the Director to assign an adjusted score when "after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification," the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated. So the Director is empowered to adjust the score for East's second revoke. Based on the statement in the OP that the contract makes if East does not revoke, I would adjust the score.

It is true that under Law 52B, the declarer accepted East's failure to play the MPC by playing thereafter. So there is an apparent conflict between Law 52B and Law 64C. However, in such a case the conflict should be resolved by giving effect to both sections if possible. Law 64B3 shows that Law 64 specifically contemplates revokes that occur by not playing a penalty card. So I would interpret Law 52B's statement that declarer has "accepted" East's play to mean that declarer cannot require the play to be retracted and the penalty card played. So if, for example, East's action made no difference to the outcome of the hand, declarer would be stuck with it. But Law 52B does not, I would say, override Law 64C. So the Director may, and in the circumstances should, adjust the score.

[iviehoff]

bixby, on 2012-October-02, 09:40, said:

Law 64B3 shows that Law 64 specifically contemplates revokes that occur by not playing a penalty card.

This plainly refers to the situation where the penalty card which wasn't played is in the same suit as the suit led, but the player played a card from a different suit from hand instead, ie, a revoke in plain sight.

We have a law that clearly is written for precisely this situation, Law 52, and we need look no further when it says "no rectification". Had the lawmakers intended the Law 52 situation to be deemed to be a revoke, and the adjustments for "revokes not subject to rectification" to apply, I really think they would have written it there explicitly. See for example Law 67B, where they clearly say that defective tricks are deemed to be revokes, albeit revokes subject to automatic rectification.

[VixTD]

I agree with Barmar and Blackshoe that the correction of the (first) revoke draws attention to it. There's nothing in the laws to say what actions constitute "drawing attention", whether they have to be verbal.

All players should call the director at that point. I understand that dummy may be wary of doing so, but declarer has no such excuse. I expect most competitors at green-point events to be aware of this responsibility, although it's possible that some of these players are inexperienced. I consider both sides to be offending.

I agree with Bixby that there was a second revoke, which was condoned by declarer.

According to law 12B1 the purpose of a score adjustment is

Quote

...to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.

By failing to call the director, EW gained because they were not informed of the restrictions on the play of the major penalty card, so they receive an assigned adjusted score based on the likely outcome(s) had they not overruffed. NS are not due any adjustment, as they are an offending side, and did not gain from the offence of failing to call the TD, so they keep the score obtained in the play of the board. I'd also warn both sides for failing to call the TD at the appropriate time, or penalise them if it is a second offence (WB148.2l)

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-02, 10:28, said:

This plainly refers to the situation where the penalty card which wasn't played is in the same suit as the suit led,

On what do you base this claim?

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-02, 11:06, said:

On what do you base this claim?

I now realise this comment was misconceived. Law 60A plainly defines any failure to play a card you are required or directed to play as a revoke. What I find curious is to insist it is still a revoke when the failure to play such a card has been condoned (which is different from merely being too late to correct it). If this had been intended, surely it would have said so at L 52.

I'll add this to my list of curiosities in the law.

(Edited to remove a load of rubbish).

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2012-October-03, 02:10

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-03, 01:53, said:

Law 60A plainly defines any failure to play a card you are required or directed to play as a revoke. What I find curious is to insist it is still a revoke when the failure to play such a card has been condoned (which is different from merely being too late to correct it).

Following to a trick after another player has revoked is not "condoning" the play the way it would be after, say, a lead out of turn. A revoke has still taken place (although of course the OP case is more complicated, since the director had not been called. In that case perhaps there should be no penalties assessed.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-03, 04:20, said:

Following to a trick after another player has revoked is not "condoning" the play the way it would be after, say, a lead out of turn.

That is true in the revoke laws. But this is failing to play a penalty card, and there is a specific law on that, Law 52, where condoning is possible. In fact Law 52 uses the word "accept" rather than condone.

Although Law 52 as written appears to include a simple rule on what to do when a defender fails to play a penalty card, and declarer plays after that, when we realise that failing to play a penalty card is also always a revoke, we unfortunately discover that this part Law 52 is simply inconsistent with the revoke laws. This is true whether the failure to play a penalty card was consistent with the rules on following suit when able, or not.

In this simpler case, where the the failure to play the penalty card did not also breach the laws on following suit when able, it does at least seem possible to apply Law 52 and stay well away from the revoke laws. That seems to be the simple thing to do.

If the failure to play the penalty card had further been an offence against failing to follow suit, we would really have been in a mess. We can hardly stay away from the revoke laws in this case. Declarer plays a card following the failure to follow suit, and now, according to Law 52, it must be accepted. Yet in the revoke laws, is not yet an established revoke, and must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it. (In fact arguably this applies to the other case also.) Law 52 is clearly a complete mess in this situation.

This is why I have put Law 52 on my list of curiosities, ie laws that don't work properly.

(Edited to improve wording.)

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-03, 05:58, said:

That is true in the revoke laws. But this is failing to play a penalty card, and there is a specific law on that, Law 52, where condoning is possible. In fact Law 52 uses the word "accept" rather than condone.

Law 52 is mute on whether a revoke has nonetheless occurred. I had assumed that this meant that it had. The Law should be explicit; on that I agree with you.

[bixby]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-03, 05:58, said:

If the failure to play the penalty card had further been an offence against failing to follow suit, we would really have been in a mess. We can hardly stay away from the revoke laws in this case. Declarer plays a card following the failure to follow suit, and now, according to Law 52, it must be accepted. Yet in the revoke laws, is not yet an established revoke, and must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it. (In fact arguably this applies to the other case also.) Law 52 is clearly a complete mess in this situation.

Good point. Law 62A is even more in tension with Law 52B1b than Law 64C. I don't see how to resolve the conflict between saying that declarer must accept the play if he has played after the defender fails to play the MPC but the defender must correct the revoke if it is noticed before it becomes established.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-02, 09:04, said:

Barmar is quite right, there is no rectification here. As Paul said, dummy was put in a difficult position: it isn't 100% clear he could have called the director. But it was all happening right in front of declarer's eyes, and by failing to call the director to have his rights asserted, he failed to realise his rights and acquiesced with the opponent's irregularities. If you fail to call the director to assert your rights, you can indeed lose them. Hopefully declarer has now learned this lesson.

No doubt she has. And what lesson have the defenders learnt? That, by failing to call the TD, they have beaten a game that would have made if they had called the TD, which they were required to do by Law. Are you sure this is the lesson you want them to learn?

[blackshoe]

I don't want them to learn that lesson, so if I'm ruling that they beat the contract, I'm also giving them a PP for failure to call the TD. They'll still gain overall unless I give them a large enough PP to compensate for the gain, but I don't think that's kosher.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-October-03, 09:06, said:

No doubt she has. And what lesson have the defenders learnt? That, by failing to call the TD, they have beaten a game that would have made if they had called the TD, which they were required to do by Law. Are you sure this is the lesson you want them to learn?

Good point.

The Laws say you aren't required to draw attention to your own side's irregularities. However, once attention is drawn, both sides are required to call the TD. It would probably be appropriate to allow the table score to stand (the NOS could have saved themselves by calling the TD), but issue PPs for failing to call. Should you issue PPs to both sides (since they were both at fault for not calling the TD) or just the OS (since the NOS were already punished by getting a bad score)? Or should you adjust the score and then issue PPs to everyone?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-October-03, 09:06, said:

No doubt she has. And what lesson have the defenders learnt? That, by failing to call the TD, they have beaten a game that would have made if they had called the TD, which they were required to do by Law. Are you sure this is the lesson you want them to learn?

What I do now think is that we should examine whether we can adjust under Law 23 in relation to damage from the irregularity of failure to play the penalty card - I presume we will discover it was sufficiently foreseeable that failing to play it could well damage the opposition.

In relation to take your general point, I'm not convinced that is actually the lesson that the defenders really understand. I think they would understand that it was the other sides's failure to call the TD that gave them an apparent advantage. Also given the general understanding that you aren't required to call the TD for your own irregularities, and that is sufficiently unclear to the ordinary player that what happened amounts to calling attention (you post it as a question on this forum), I would rather give them words rather than penalties for failure to call.

Let me cite a case where I benefited from my own irregularity: it hasn't given me any wrong lessons I don't think. I feel rather embarrassed because I once made a doomed contract because I inadvertently led from the wrong hand and the defender just followed, and that was that as far as I could see. With a red face, I pointed out what had happened to the defence, as soon as it happened, and they wrote it off as their own folly. Although that incident made me think that declarer's leading from the wrong hand now looked like rather costless ploy, it didn't encourage me to lead from the wrong hand as declarer when I could see an advantage. I am aware that in general defenders are looking out like hawks for leads from the wrong hand, because they think that is the only chance they have to repair it. I later realised, years later, that a director could have adjusted the score under Law 23 for my original inadvertent irregularity, though I think it would be rare to find a case where such an adjustment has occurred, and I'm not sure many ordinary club directors would realise that, or even accept it if you tried to argue it to them.