[zenbiddist]

Declarer leads a side suit, and LHO ruffs in (revoking). Dummy plays low, and RHO plays low.
At this point, LHO realises they've revoked, and the director asks them to play a diamond. Dummy is allowed to change their card to a king.

Can RHO play change their card and play an ace?
If so, they would. Now declarer could exercise lead directing rights, and so on.
But is RHO's previously contributed card a penalty card?

Now there is a small UI problem - LHO knows which pip RHO contributed to the revoke, and now they've produced an ace.
How do the laws treat that UI problem?

Thanks

[sfi]

You're looking for law 62C.

Once declarer chooses to change dummy's card, RHO can also change their card. 62C2 tells us that the card originally played is a (major) penalty card. The law directs us to 16C which tells us that the information from the withdrawn play is unauthorised to the defending side. So LHO is not entitled to know what card they were going to play to the trick and the information associated with that trick. LHO is entitled to know that RHO has to play the penalty card at their first legal opportunity though.

If RHO wins the ace, both defenders have a major penalty card. So law 50D2 kicks in. Before RHO leads, declarer gets the normal lead options associated with LHO's penalty card. If their penalty card is compatible with declarer's choice, they must lead that. If not, they lead another card and it remains as a penalty card.

[weejonnie]

Note that the other penalty card (the trump) will be picked up if declarer insists on (or forbids) a specific suit. If he doesn't then RHO has to lead the penalty card and it remains on the table. Whilst the penalty cards are on the table information about them is authorised to the OS as well as the NOS - but if the OS gain from the information then the score is adjusted.

Law 50E draws a fine line - in effect it allows players to make their normal leads etc without having to carefully avoid making use of the information i.e. having to choose a logical alternative if one exists. (73C/16B)

[barmar]

sfi, on 2019-October-01, 21:15, said:

You're looking for law 62C.

Once declarer chooses to change dummy's card, RHO can also change their card. 62C2 tells us that the card originally played is a (major) penalty card. The law directs us to 16C which tells us that the information from the withdrawn play is unauthorised to the defending side. So LHO is not entitled to know what card they were going to play to the trick and the information associated with that trick. LHO is entitled to know that RHO has to play the penalty card at their first legal opportunity though.

Have you gotten LHO and RHO mixed up? LHO is the one who revoked and now has a penalty card. RHO legally withdrew their card when declarer changed dummy's card. their original card is UI to LHO, but not a penalty card.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2019-October-02, 09:10, said:

Have you gotten LHO and RHO mixed up? LHO is the one who revoked and now has a penalty card. RHO legally withdrew their card when declarer changed dummy's card. their original card is UI to LHO, but not a penalty card.

Law 62C2 is as follows. Note the phrase in bold.

Quote

2. After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C).

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-October-02, 09:10, said:

Have you gotten LHO and RHO mixed up? LHO is the one who revoked and now has a penalty card. RHO legally withdrew their card when declarer changed dummy's card. their original card is UI to LHO, but not a penalty card.

HUH?
The card withdrawn by RHO under Law 62C2 also becomes a major penalty card. Read carefully and understand Law 62C2 !

[axman]

zenbiddist, on 2019-October-01, 20:46, said:

Declarer leads a side suit, and LHO ruffs in (revoking). Dummy plays low, and RHO plays low.
At this point, LHO realises they've revoked, and the director asks them to play a diamond. Dummy is allowed to change their card to a king.

Can RHO play change their card and play an ace?
If so, they would. Now declarer could exercise lead directing rights, and so on.
But is RHO's previously contributed card a penalty card?

Now there is a small UI problem - LHO knows which pip RHO contributed to the revoke, and now they've produced an ace.
How do the laws treat that UI problem?

Thanks

You have noticed a defect in the revoke correction procedure. Namely, offender can learn of cards before his correction (the Alcatraz Coup condition). It does not seem cricket that the offending side can get two extra turns rather than suffer the effects of L57A.

[pran]

axman, on 2019-October-02, 10:54, said:

You have noticed a defect in the revoke correction procedure. Namely, offender can learn of cards before his correction (the Alcatraz Coup condition). It does not seem cricket that the offending side can get two extra turns rather than suffer the effects of L57A.

I have a problem seeing how this illustrates any defect in the revoke correcting procedure.

If you refer to zenbiddist's remark and question:

Can RHO play change their card and play an ace?
If so, they would. Now declarer could exercise lead directing rights, and so on.
But is RHO's previously contributed card a penalty card?

then the answer is that RHO may certainly change his card if Declarer first changes the card he has played from Dummy.
But the card RHO thus retracts in order to change his play does indeed become a major penalty card.

I don't see how the revoking side can end up with any advantage from this compared to the situation had LHO not revoked in the first place?

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-October-02, 13:19, said:

I don't see how the revoking side can end up with any advantage from this compared to the situation had LHO not revoked in the first place?

And if they do somehow get an advantage, and the TD judges that the revoker "could well have known" this would happen, the score can be adjusted.

[sanst]

pran, on 2019-October-02, 09:18, said:

HUH?
The card withdrawn by RHO under Law 62C2 also becomes a major penalty card. Read carefully and understand Law 62C2 !

Don’t be so pedantic. We all make mistakes.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-October-02, 14:31, said:

Don’t be so pedantic. We all make mistakes.

Thank you. Indeed, I didn't bother to read the relevant Law, my memory about the withdrawn card was faulty.

Were I actually directing, I would of course read the Law and follow it step by step.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-October-02, 14:35, said:

Were I actually directing, I would of course read the Law and follow it step by step.

Would you really? I would read the Law if I was in real doubt, but not just to be sure I was right. Players take note of these things, especially if they know the TD is inexperienced as I am.

[blackshoe]

If you are absolutely sure that your memory of the law is complete and correct, you're probably wrong.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 00:28, said:

If you are absolutely sure that your memory of the law is complete and correct, you're probably wrong.

After 40 years as active director I consider myself having a fair knowledge of the laws.
But there are still situations (in particular Laws 29-32 call out of rotation) where I never rule without consulting my law book in each individual case

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-October-03, 01:44, said:

After 40 years as active director I consider myself having a fair knowledge of the laws.
But there are still situations (in particular Laws 29-32 call out of rotation) where I never rule without consulting my law book in each individual case

It looks more professional and reassures players that you have got it right. They don’t know how long you have been directing or how well you know the laws.

[axman]

pran, on 2019-October-02, 13:19, said:

I have a problem seeing how this illustrates any defect in the revoke correcting procedure.

If you refer to zenbiddist's remark and question:

Can RHO play change their card and play an ace?
If so, they would. Now declarer could exercise lead directing rights, and so on.
But is RHO's previously contributed card a penalty card?

then the answer is that RHO may certainly change his card if Declarer first changes the card he has played from Dummy.
But the card RHO thus retracts in order to change his play does indeed become a major penalty card.

I don't see how the revoking side can end up with any advantage from this compared to the situation had LHO not revoked in the first place?

As the law sits, this situation creates two extra turns for the OS (the 'OOT' correction by revoker and an 'OOT' change of play by revoker's partner) where revoker thus gains such information as well as the card of the NOS before choosing his revoke correction.

The appropriate remedy is to prevent where practical the OS from gaining such turns. And to some extent it is practical: a. the NOS can affect revoker's correction thereby eliminating the gain of that extra turn and b. by making revoker's partner original card stand as played to eliminate revoker's partner from that extra turn

This approach removes Thought Crime from the menu and avoids presenting an ethics problem to revoker's correction.

[pran]

axman, on 2019-October-03, 11:40, said:

As the law sits, this situation creates two extra turns for the OS (the 'OOT' correction by revoker and an 'OOT' change of play by revoker's partner) where revoker thus gains such information as well as the card of the NOS before choosing his revoke correction.

The appropriate remedy is to prevent where practical the OS from gaining such turns. And to some extent it is practical: a. the NOS can affect revoker's correction thereby eliminating the gain of that extra turn and b. by making revoker's partner original card stand as played to eliminate revoker's partner from that extra turn

This approach removes Thought Crime from the menu and avoids presenting an ethics problem to revoker's correction.

Sorry - I cannot follow your logic.

First of all, what do you mean by 'OOT' ?

Second: Instead of just stating a theory I should appreciate an example clearly showing the problem.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-03, 08:27, said:

It looks more professional and reassures players that you have got it right. They don’t know how long you have been directing or how well you know the laws.

I guess this is another cultural difference. In the eyes of my players, seeing that I have to read the book is no guarantee that I am going to get things right - if anything the contrary.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-October-03, 13:28, said:

I guess this is another cultural difference. In the eyes of my players, seeing that I have to read the book is no guarantee that I am going to get things right - if anything the contrary.

They trust your memory more than the original source? Bizarre.

The first question asked on the first day of my County Directors course was “how do you make book rulings?” My hand shot up because I knew the answer “with the book”.

[blackshoe]

First time I was called to make a ruling (on a LOOT) I pulled out the book. Declarer said "we don't have time for that".