[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-September-28, 10:25, said:

Yes, the TD can, but should not, until play has ended. (Okay, they can look at the back side of the quitted tricks to ensure there wasn't a fifth card played or a stuck card, but they could check current cards in hand instead.)

The reason for this is the same as the reason why the opponents don't have to and should not remind declarer about the previous play, and why dummy shouldn't be showing declarer their card after it is quitted to "prove" that she is on the board/in hand. The director certainly shouldn't be assisting declarer with her memory. This is also why, if called for an established revoke, the director will not ask for it to be proven before the end of the hand (and this director gets very upset when he gets to a table with the last 3 tricks turned face up. Sure, you found the revoke this time, but what if there wasn't one, declarer just wanted to see the last three tricks?)

It is quite feasible for director to peek at the down side of quitted tricks with nobody but the owner of those cards able to share the view, at least with our current large tables.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2022-September-28, 11:38, said:

It is quite feasible for director to peek at the down side of quitted tricks with nobody but the owner of those cards able to share the view, at least with our current large tables.

When there is no TD ruling that may be done is it proper for the TD to unnecessarily delay play? No. Players that unnecessarily delay play should be penalized. What penalty must the TD pay when he does it?

[mycroft]

But the point is not that it can be done, but that the information discovered can not be divulged before the end of the hand without prejudicing one pair or the other. And also, there is no reason to know - the Laws handle all situations that could have occurred (granted, some better than others). So why do it?

There are many people who, after I give the "there is Unauthorized Information here, partner may not make a call based on that information if there's another reasonable call" spiel, wait until partner bids and then look at me to see if it's all okay. "I'm not going to look into her hand and tell you 'yeah, she's got her bid.'" (never mind that that is a Judgement ruling that shouldn't be done at the table). They usually realize pretty quickly that yeah, that wouldn't be fair.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-September-28, 12:35, said:

But the point is not that it can be done, but that the information discovered can not be divulged before the end of the hand without prejudicing one pair or the other. And also, there is no reason to know - the Laws handle all situations that could have occurred (granted, some better than others). So why do it?

There are many people who, after I give the "there is Unauthorized Information here, partner may not make a call based on that information if there's another reasonable call" spiel, wait until partner bids and then look at me to see if it's all okay. "I'm not going to look into her hand and tell you 'yeah, she's got her bid.'" (never mind that that is a Judgement ruling that shouldn't be done at the table). They usually realize pretty quickly that yeah, that wouldn't be fair.

I agree on the second point (of course), remain perplexed on the first.
If I discovered (in a few seconds, axman, less than it takes to explain anything to the players) that South had indeed revoked on the third round of the suit, why can I not divulge that without prejudicing one pair of the other (which?).

[axman]

pescetom, on 2022-September-30, 12:27, said:

I agree on the second point (of course), remain perplexed on the first.
If I discovered (in a few seconds, axman, less than it takes to explain anything to the players) that South had indeed revoked on the third round of the suit, why can I not divulge that without prejudicing one pair of the other (which?).

Who plays cards? Players. Who does not play cards? TD.

L45A Each PLAYER except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the
table immediately before him.

The location of non-faced cards is found out *******WHEN******* they are played. The TD fumbling around searching for yet to be played cards Causes the location of cards to be known by improper means. Therefore it is improper for the TD to do so (in the middle of the hand).

[sanst]

barmar, on 2022-September-28, 09:53, said:

The TD can examine the quitted tricks to see if it has been played.

Why would he do that and what law permits him to do so? Het certainly isn’t allowed to tell the players that the nine of clubs has or hasn’t been played. What the TD can do at this point, is ask N to check his cards again for a club. If he hasn’t one, there might have been a revoke, that is established by now. So there’s no use checking the played cards, which can only give UI, something a TD must certainly avoid. After the play he returns and any TD knows what to do then. If not, read Blackshoe’s contribution (#8).
Actually, I don’t understand why this is discussed. It’s one of the most common irregularities, one that you are trained to handle in the very first course you take when training as TD, at least over here.

[mycroft]

"Yes there was a revoke a few tricks back." Sure, that's not news, but literally what does that get any player that doesn't get resolved if we check at the end of the hand?

However: "No, there wasn't a revoke." What does that get declarer, who is sure that someone still has the ♣9? Oh yes, it reminds him that it was in *his* hand and was played earlier. Or that it was pitched while pulling the 4-1 trump break that he was concentrating on counting to 13 on. Or ... The opponents were very happy when declarer had lost track of the cards. Now you've helped him catch back up.

The first nets nobody anything. The second *affects the play* - quite literally the same way that the players looking through the tricks for the revoke does. And you can't "confirm" the revoke without the chance that it turns out there is no revoke.

Frankly, even if declarer can't work out what happened, just being told "no, your memory of the hand so far is wrong" is *affecting the play* to the defenders' disadvantage.

I would be happy to assist with a potential revoke on the immediately previous trick to avoid it becoming established. But one that already is established? Much too dangerous, and disruptive. "Call me when the ♣9 shows up, or at the end of the hand and we can work it out. If there has been an established revoke, it's a one-trick penalty unless the revoker ruffed."

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2022-September-23, 12:40, said:

I agree 100%, although I don't like that aspect of Law 61.

Would it end there for you?

What else would you like me to do?

[barmar]

I'm convinced. There's no point in trying to confirm at this point whether declarer is correct about the revoke. As blackshoe said, it's too late to make it an unestablished revoke. So you wait until the end of the hand, by which time the revoke will have been confirmed (since someone will have to play the ♣9), and then you apply the standard revoke correction.

However, the players should be cautioned not to distube the quitted tricks until the TD returns to adjudicate. He'll need to determine if the revoker won the trick on which they revoked, so that the appropriate number of tricks can be transferred. He also might need to award additional tricks to the NOS if the standard correction doesn't restore equity.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2022-October-03, 15:46, said:

However, the players should be cautioned not to distube the quitted tricks until the TD returns to adjudicate.

Good thought. I estimate an 85% chance at least one of them will forget this caution by the time the hand is ended. :-)

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2022-October-01, 15:38, said:

What else would you like me to do?

Consider possible intentionality and maybe recording the event, as previously discussed.

barmar, on 2022-October-03, 15:46, said:

I'm convinced. There's no point in trying to confirm at this point whether declarer is correct about the revoke.

Me too, and thanks all for that.