[jillybean]

Could someone please explain the meaning of this footnote (19) , Dummy can't revoke?

LAW 64 - PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A. Automatic Trick Adjustment
When a revoke is established:

1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player (19), at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side.

2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player (19) then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

19 A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law.

[blackshoe]

"Dummy can't revoke" is a myth. However, there is no automatic trick adjustment if dummy revokes. The director might still adjust the score.

[P_Marlowe]

I am not a TD, but:

Dummy is not active, declarer is calling / requesting the cards to be played from Dummy.
If declarer requests a non legal card to be played, and it gets played, than the opponents see, that
a non legal card got played, and if they play a card themself, they accept the card played.

This is similar to bids out of turn, if the following player bids on, he accepts the out of turn bid.

The director can still adjust the score to make sure, that other tables are not affected, but accepting
the non legal card by playing on, basically says: we are fine with this, and if they are fine with it,
they dont need a penalty card to compensate possible damage, they dont believe they received by the play
of the illegal card.
........................................................................................................
The penalty card is not a penalty for the offending side, it is compensation for the nonoffending side.
This is not the same, although in effect it will be most of the time.
If the compensation is not enough, the TD can still adjust, the famous example:
The revoke allowes 3NT to make with overtricks, without the revoke it would go down.
The compensation is not enough, 3NT still makes, the TD adjusts to the most likely outcome.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-June-14, 23:33, said:

Could someone please explain the meaning of this footnote (19)?

It means that if declarer revokes and wins the trick, two tricks are transferred to the other side at the end of play. If declarer revokes and dummy wins the trick, only one trick is transferred.

Of course all the other provisions still apply.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-June-14, 23:33, said:

Could someone please explain the meaning of this footnote (19) , Dummy can't revoke?

LAW 64 - PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A. Automatic Trick Adjustment
When a revoke is established:

1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player (19), at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side.

2. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player (19) then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

19 A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law.

By law dummy moves played cards to a played position. It is declarer that plays dummy's cards. (however, there are situations that cause dummy's card that have not been designated by declarer to be played).

I suggest that 'was won by the offending player (19)' that for some the winning player can be construed to be declarer (when dummy wins the trick) so the footnote was implemented as clarification of who is such offending player. I am not suggesting that the LC did the best effort.

[jillybean]

"There's no automatic trick adjustment if dummy revokes."
"If dummy wins the revoke trick, 1 trick is transferred, if declarer wins the revoke trick, 2 tricks are transferred."

That is 2 very different interpretations of the law. If I understand correctly, there is no automatic trick adjustment for a revoke played by dummy but the Director may adjust the result if declarer gained an advantage.

An automatic 1 or 2 trick penalty applies only to a revoke by defender or to a revoke made with a card from Declarer's hand.


"Dummy is not active, declarer is calling / requesting the cards to be played from Dummy." you are lucky if this is the practice in your club. Where I play, it is becoming common for dummy to have an active role in playing the hand.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-June-15, 17:20, said:

"There's no automatic trick adjustment if dummy revokes."
"If dummy wins the revoke trick, 1 trick is transferred, if declarer wins the revoke trick, 2 tricks are transferred."

That is 2 very different interpretations of the law. If I understand correctly, there is no automatic trick adjustment for a revoke played by dummy but the Director may adjust the result if declarer gained an advantage.

An automatic 1 or 2 trick penalty applies only to a revoke by defender or to a revoke made with a card from Declarer's hand.

That's because we're talking about different laws. Footnote 19 is referring to the specific situation when declarer revokes, and either wins the trick in their hand or in dummy. It simply clarifies that declarer and dummy are different "players" when determining the adjustment.

Law 64B3 covers the situation where dummy revokes, and tells us there is no automatic trick adjustment when this happens. Any adjustment due to a revoke by dummy is covered by 64C.

[mycroft]

To be clear - others have given the right interpretations of the Law:

The footnote is to the phrase "When a revoke is established and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player [it is a 2 trick penalty]", L64A1. It is making clear that a revoke by declarer does not trigger this section if the trick was won in dummy (even though declarer played/called for the card that won the trick). This is *inevitably* the response by the defenders when I say "declarer did not win the trick she revoked on" - "yes, she did"; "no, dummy won the trick" - and is why the footnote is there, to show to defenders (and to make clear to directors) what is intended by the Law.

Or, as I usually paraphrase, "two if you ruffed, one if you didn't." Yes, I've been caught (once) by an overruff, but the point stands.

"Dummy can't revoke" is an old-wives'-tale, its seed being Law 67B3: "There is no automatic trick adjustment following an established revoke (but see Law 64C) if: ... the revoke was made in failing to play a penalty card or any card belonging to dummy" (used to be phrased "failing to play a faced card, including a card from dummy". I like the new phrasing better, it's clearer). Dummy 100% can and does revoke, and those revokes are established in the same manner as any other player - it's just that there's no automatic trick awarded, we go immediately to "equity" 64C1 ("When after any established revoke, *including those not subject to trick adjustment*...") Equity rulings can occasionally be "odd", as my second or so tournament showed when declarer, seeing a spade void in dummy in 6♥, called for a ruff, then played a heart (crashing the A and K in the 11-card fit) and claiming. Except that when the ♥ was pulled from dummy, the ♠A was revealed...

Heh, one of my crazy bridge hands (where dummy must play their own cards without prompting from declarer) is actually called "They do it anyway..."

[Manastorm]

What happens if declarer ask RHO to play a designated card from dummy, however RHO first plays a card from her hand and then revokes dummy?

[jillybean]

Manastorm, on 2023-June-20, 13:35, said:

What happens if declarer ask RHO to play a designated card from dummy, however RHO first plays a card from her hand and then revokes dummy?

?

[mycroft]

If I understand correctly, dummy is away from the table having a smoke, and the opponents have agreed to move cards for them.

The key is that the card is played from dummy when declarer calls for it (45B) - there are reasons why as defender one would want to wait for the card to be pulled, but that's not relevant to this statement.

So declarer called for a card, and it is played. RHO plays to the trick (in turn - remember, dummy's card is played), and then (belatedly) moves dummy's card. But they pulled a card that declarer did not name. So we rule the same way we would rule if dummy pulled a card declarer did not name (okay, the Law (45D) doesn't say this specifically, but that's what we would do) - withdraw it and replace it. The fact that it's also not the suit led is irrelevant - so dummy did not in fact revoke.

Assuming we got as far as 45D2, I'd follow the Law (which might include "dummy revoked", but it's still an "equity only" revoke) and, assuming it didn't penalize everybody, ensure that I did. After all, dummy shouldn't leave. If they do, the opponents can't legally accept the responsibility to pull cards (but almost everyone does, and I don't care). If they do, they have a responsibility to ensure that the card pulled is the card named by declarer. If they don't, the entire table has the responsibility to notice that before the trick is put away. If that didn't happen, I can see a procedural penalty or two being considered appropriate, if for no other reason than wasting the director's time.

[Manastorm]

I had a misunderstanding. I assumed that the trick would become played when all four cards have been played. Actually both sides have to play a card to the next trick that to happen, which would require a lot more mind gymnastics to happen accidentally.

[blackshoe]

It is true that quitting a trick that contains a revoke does not establish the revoke, if that's what you mean.

[jillybean]

I look forward to the day of electronic bridge with no loots, boots, insufficient bids or revokes.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-June-20, 15:09, said:

If I understand correctly, dummy is away from the table having a smoke, and the opponents have agreed to move cards for them.

The key is that the card is played from dummy when declarer calls for it (45B) - there are reasons why as defender one would want to wait for the card to be pulled, but that's not relevant to this statement.

So declarer called for a card, and it is played. RHO plays to the trick (in turn - remember, dummy's card is played), and then (belatedly) moves dummy's card. But they pulled a card that declarer did not name. So we rule the same way we would rule if dummy pulled a card declarer did not name (okay, the Law (45D) doesn't say this specifically, but that's what we would do) - withdraw it and replace it. The fact that it's also not the suit led is irrelevant - so dummy did not in fact revoke.

Assuming we got as far as 45D2, I'd follow the Law (which might include "dummy revoked", but it's still an "equity only" revoke) and, assuming it didn't penalize everybody, ensure that I did. After all, dummy shouldn't leave. If they do, the opponents can't legally accept the responsibility to pull cards (but almost everyone does, and I don't care). If they do, they have a responsibility to ensure that the card pulled is the card named by declarer. If they don't, the entire table has the responsibility to notice that before the trick is put away. If that didn't happen, I can see a procedural penalty or two being considered appropriate, if for no other reason than wasting the director's time.

hmmmm.....

Does it make sense that for a card to participate in a trick it necessarily must be played? Which begs the question.....

Where does the law specify dummy's card having not been designated by declarer (by naming or touching) is a played card? Thinking in terms of dummy having touch/moved a card to a played position without instruction (for that matter also including when a defender is co-opted as agent). I thought so.

I would believe that such card not having been played cannot participate (be part of a trick) in ownership of a trick even if the players act as if it had won the trick.

[mycroft]

45D2 explains what happens if a card not named by declarer becomes part of a quitted trick. I think it's new, and I think it's very bad in it's current form. I think the problems with it have been brought up before. But there has to be a solution, and there has to be a time when we can't go back.

Maybe the solution is 12C (or B, I guess, if necessary). Frankly, for the one time a year (in the world) this happens, anything's fine as long as there is a process to follow.

But the card is played when declarer names it (45B), and the actual physical movement of the piece of cardboard is (until 45D2 applies) irrelevant.

That applies to dummy's violations of 43A1c/45F "but it's obvious" too. And in fact, pedant that I am, I will ask declarer if he has chosen to play the card.

Now that you point it out, this must be the reason 45D is written the way it is - effectively all 45D situations are "dummy plays the obvious card without declarer's intent" and effectively all 45D2 situations are "and the defenders don't care, and just keep playing." Which means that the "bad" 45D situations - where declarer calls for card A, and card B is pulled - get swallowed up in the wash.

(I guess that also applies to "run the clubs" - which is legally equivalent to "play the top club". If dummy actually follows declarer's intention, all the rest of the club plays are 45D (maybe not 45F?) violations).

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2023-June-21, 08:25, said:

(I guess that also applies to "run the clubs" - which is legally equivalent to "play the top club". If dummy actually follows declarer's intention, all the rest of the club plays are 45D (maybe not 45F?) violations).

Probably a 46B violation. But once we accept declarer's improper form of designation, I wouldn't consider dummy to be at fault. They're moving the card that declarer clearly intended.

[mycroft]

I can't see where - given the legal interpretation of "run the clubs" as "top club, please" - it matches any of the 47B ideas. Whether or not the intent of declarer is obvious - I agree, it is, except when they see the fatal pitch or recognize a declarer squeeze and tell dummy to cancel and play something else, which always evokes joy - it's not "incomplete", it's not "invalid", it's "nonexistent" designation. Dummy has put into play a card declarer did not name, at all (even though the entire table thinks he did).

Unfortunately, it's a legal interpretation, and not explicitly part of the Laws. It was, in fact, my first suggestion to the Laws Committee this time that something be explicitly in the Laws about it, because it's such a pervasive issue, and such a nasty ruling.

[barmar]

It's not endorsed by the laws, but I'm pretty sure I've seen SO regulations that explain how "run the clubs" should be understood. They're implicitly calling "top club" until dummy runs out of clubs or they explicitly put a stop to it (they're allowed to notice that the suit doesn't break and change their mind).

[blackshoe]

There is a WBFLC minute about "run the clubs". Basically, they deprecate the procedure, but they don't say you can't do it. Which, to me, is just stupid.