[Vampyr]

---

Last night I was playing 3NT and reached the above position. I led the ♥J towards the A, but West discarded a diamond. Then he found a heart in his hand.

Now I was able to finesse and demand a diamond lead. This resulted in three extra tricks, while if West had simply let the revoke become established, I would have got one extra trick. Should this opportunity for sharp practice really exist?

Note: I could not figure out how to edit the diagram. Please assume that West has one more spade and one fewer heart.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2017-February-16, 09:37
Reason for edit: Edited the diagram to correct the note

[RMB1]

Some experienced players know that the revoke penalty can cost fewer tricks than the penalty card penalty. Such players do not ask partner "having none?"

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2017-February-15, 16:35, said:

Some experienced players know that the revoke penalty can cost fewer tricks than the penalty card penalty. Such players do not ask partner "having none?"

The TD could deem that he became aware of the revoke before it was established.

62A states: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

I think the TD should use "could have become aware" if appropriate, applying Law 23 if necessary.

[gnasher]

Stupid rules do lead to stupid results, but this particular scenario is hardly a huge problem.
For this to occur:
- Someone must revoke.
- They must realise they've revoked before it's established.
- The cost of the penalty card must be more than the cost of an established revoke.
- The player must be quick-thinking enough to realise that without instinctively correcting his revoke.
- The player must be dishonest.

This is the second time I've heard of a situation like this. On both occasions the player corrected the revoke without establishing it.

[sanst]

Huge is a huge word for something that's maybe a minor problem. Actually, I think it's not a problem at all, it's just a consequence of the revoke rules and a rare occurrence. Those rules quite often award the NOS an extra tricka even when the revoke wouldn't have had any influence on the result. I suppose you call that an enormous problem and almost killing flaw in the laws.
If you really have a huge problem with the laws, you should try to get these changed - you have ten years to do that - or start a club with laws that are more to your liking. But it's impossible to construct a law book that's complete, equitable and inherently consistent. So don't loose any sleep over it.
In this case the laws worked to your advantage because E had the diamond king. Otherwise W had collected not only the diamond trick, but six spades as well. BTW, why didn't you pick up your three club tricks an dthe two aces first?

[Vampyr]

 sanst, on 2017-February-16, 07:19, said:

Huge is a huge word for something that's maybe a minor problem. Actually, I think it's not a problem at all, it's just a consequence of the revoke rules and a rare occurrence. Those rules quite often award the NOS an extra tricka even when the revoke wouldn't have had any influence on the result. I suppose you call that an enormous problem and almost killing flaw in the laws.
If you really have a huge problem with the laws, you should try to get these changed - you have ten years to do that - or start a club with laws that are more to your liking. But it's impossible to construct a law book that's complete, equitable and inherently consistent. So don't lose any sleep over it.
In this case the laws worked to your advantage because E had the diamond king. Otherwise W had collected not only the diamond trick, but six spades as well. BTW, why didn't you pick up your three club tricks an dthe two aces first?

No special reason; I just thought that if I played the ♥A before finishing the clubs something interesting might happen. And something did...

I don't think that the fact that a revoke often costs when it couldn't affect the outcome is a problem; it is no one else's fault that the person did not follow suit. But I find that the opportunity to deliberately allow a revoke to become established is a problem. There is no disincentive to do it, and no way to prove that it was deliberate.

I wonder... if declarer asks the revoker if he has any, and that player still denies it, could a ruling revert back to the penalty card?

[weejonnie]

I don't think there is really a problem - after all you could have forbidden a Diamond return or requested east to make their natural lead, or just won with the Ace and cashed out, or even won the Diamond return with the Ace.

If it helps assuage your guilt then law 10C3 is applicable.

[mycroft]

"You are on lead to 3NT with ♦AKQJTxx. You lead the Ace, declarer plays one of dummy's xxx, and partner shows out. What's your next plan?"
"Put the K on the table before partner finds her diamond!"

This has been around for a while; and it happens maybe once a year.

Yes, the way the law currently stands, it is in West's best interest to "not find" the heart until the revoke is established; and also that that is illegal ("must correct...if he becomes aware before it becomes established"). Suggested new law removes the ambiguity ("must correct if attention has been drawn...before...established") so now the TD doesn't have to determine intent, or exactly when the revoker became aware. It also explicitly allows the revoker to determine if it is bad for his side to mention anything. Takes some skill, too, and knowledge of the Laws (which is usually not considered highly, but, you know, striped shirt and all that).

[Vampyr]

 weejonnie, on 2017-February-16, 09:02, said:

I don't think there is really a problem - after all you could have forbidden a Diamond return or requested east to make their natural lead, or just won with the Ace and cashed out, or even won the Diamond return with the Ace.

If it helps assuage your guilt then law 10C3 is applicable.

I don't feel guilty, but I do think it is a big flaw. As in the post above, it is not unusual that a player will notice that establishing his or his partner's revoke will be in his best interest.

We have seen players at the top level of the game transmitting information through pre-arranged signals, and people here doubt that player will do this?

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2017-February-15, 17:55, said:

Stupid rules do lead to stupid results, but this particular scenario is hardly a huge problem.
For this to occur:
- Someone must revoke.
- They must realise they've revoked before it's established.
- The cost of the penalty card must be more than the cost of an established revoke.
- The player must be quick-thinking enough to realise that without instinctively correcting his revoke.
- The player must be dishonest.

This is the second time I've heard of a situation like this. On both occasions the player corrected the revoke without establishing it.

But perhaps on 20 other occasions, the player established the revoke.

[axman]

 Vampyr, on 2017-February-15, 16:08, said:

---

Last night I was playing 3NT and reached the above position. I led the ♥J towards the A, but West discarded a diamond. Then he found a heart in his hand.

Now I was able to finesse and demand a diamond lead. This resulted in three extra tricks, while if West had simply let the revoke become established, I would have got one extra trick. Should this opportunity for sharp practice really exist?

Note: I could not figure out how to edit the diagram. Please assume that West has one more spade and one fewer heart.

My view is that only 1. the revoker, and, 2. the LHO, ought to have the right to draw attention to a failure to follow. This belief rests mostly upon the principles of one action per turn (acting only at one's turn) the minimizing the creation of UI.

As such, the LHO will always have the opportunity to coerce a revoker to pay the PC penalty instead of paying the trick penalty. And certainly, revoker can choose the same, and in practice typically does. And, by the same token, an opponent (RHO) ought not be able to illegally coerce revoker to create a PC. This seems to me to be a balancing of the equities…not a flaw.

Now, the true problem is incorporating tripe like …each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

Because when it is made law there is some unsuspecting soul that believes it. Think about it. Just how important is not revoking when a revoke must not be corrected after it is established?

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2017-February-16, 10:43, said:

"You are on lead to 3NT with ♦AKQJTxx. You lead the Ace, declarer plays one of dummy's xxx, and partner shows out. What's your next plan?"
"Put the K on the table before partner finds her diamond!"

Claim 7 tricks ? I'm not sure what happens at that point

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2017-February-16, 10:43, said:

"You are on lead to 3NT with ♦AKQJTxx. You lead the Ace, declarer plays one of dummy's xxx, and partner shows out. What's your next plan?"
"Put the K on the table before partner finds her diamond!"

As someone mentioned above, how many players can really analyze the hand quickly enough to determine whether the revoke penalty will be more favorable than the penalty card? Do you plan ahead for this?

I'm not overly concerned with the types of players who would do this deliberately. Cheaters gonna cheat, and the Laws aren't written to try to deal with them, that's for disciplinary organizations.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2017-February-16, 12:07, said:

But perhaps on 20 other occasions, the player established the revoke.

You misunderstood me. Two is the total number of occasions I'm aware of when someone was in a position to gain by establishing a revoke. I'm unaware of any occasion when a revoke actually became established and the player would have been worse off by not establishing it.

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2017-February-16, 16:41, said:

You misunderstood me. Two is the total number of occasions I'm aware of when someone was in a position to gain by establishing a revoke. I'm unaware of any occasion when a revoke actually became established and the player would have been worse off by not establishing it.

Oh, OK. On that case it probably isn't as big a problem as I thought.

axman: it is not legal for a revoker to choose whether to come clean or establish the revoke. When a legal card is found, a penalty card is created. There is no coercion involved.

And obviously following suit should take precedence over everything else. This is what bridge is all about.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2017-February-16, 08:01, said:

There is no disincentive to do it, and no way to prove that it was deliberate.

Have you ever seen an instance, or even suspected one, where it was deliberate? I haven't.

 Vampyr, on 2017-February-16, 08:01, said:

I wonder... if declarer asks the revoker if he has any, and that player still denies it, could a ruling revert back to the penalty card?

I don't think so. You would have to rule that the player breached Law 62A. Where that would lead, I'm not sure.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2017-February-16, 17:24, said:

Oh, OK. On that case it probably isn't as big a problem as I thought.

Oh really?