[fito]

Hand 12
South plays 2♠
MP Club Tournament
E/W vul.

---

West is a low level player, East is a top level player and South is a good level player.

the play:

1st. trick ♣A ♣2 ♣5 ♣6
2nd. trick ♣K ♣9 ♣7 ♣J
3th. trick ♦A ♦4 ♦2 ♦3!!!!!
4th. trick ♦10 ♦J ♦Q ♠5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5th. trick ♠2 ♠3 ♠7 ♠A
6th. trick ♣3♠4 ♠9 ♠K (1st. revoke)
7th. trick ♣4 ♥5 ♣10 ♠Q (2nd. revoke, note than South knows it)
8th. trick ♥2 ♥K ♥4 ♥J
9th. trick ♠10 ♦K ♦5 ♥6 (at last the last trump)

play finish with South making 8 tricks.

South claims the revoke and ask for equity saying that playing ♥ in the same way, he makes 10 tricks. West says than he didn't play the ♥A because he controls the ♦ with the ♠10!!! (sure, but he has the ♠10 by revoking.) South says then West was upset.

TD asings then one mor trick. South Appeals.

I was not the TD, and I use to be a member of the AC, but this time I was late and can't be there, but when the TD tells me the hand, I find it like a interesting problem, and want to see your opinions.

IMO, playing MP, West, without the ♠10 (playing it in the second trump trick), could be upset, but he is not going to risk than declarer make all the tricks if he plays small ♥. In other words, declarer is not allow to get another trick, the 10th for his side. In Teams, it's possible than I agree with South, in fact West, playing small ♥, is risking only 1 IMP trying to win 5 IMP's, but that is not the case in MP, where a plus trick may be a 0.

you opinions like TD and like AC members, please? do you chage your opinion at IMPs?

[iviehoff]

 fito, on 2011-August-30, 00:57, said:

IMO, playing MP, West, without the ♠10 (playing it in the second trump trick), could be upset, but he is not going to risk than declarer make all the tricks if he plays small ♥. In other words, declarer is not allow to get another trick, the 10th for his side. In Teams, it's possible than I agree with South, in fact West, playing small ♥, is risking only 1 IMP trying to win 5 IMP's, but that is not the case in MP, where a plus trick may be a 0.

you opinions like TD and like AC members, please? do you chage your opinion at IMPs?

I think that actually the ruling is clearly wrong, because there were two revokes in the same suit, and the ruling has not been correctly made in relation to that. But I'll come to that later. Let's first look at the issue as you think it is, because it will bear on the final ruling.

Let us assume for the moment that there was only one revoke (suppose for the sake of argument that declarer didn't play a third round of trumps.) Equity in the case of revokes is under Law 64C, and is defined as an assigned adjusted score. So the director can award a weighted adjustment, provided it isn't ACBL or other jurisdiction that doesn't do weighted scores. So if you believe in real life there is a possibility of declarer making 9 tricks or 10 tricks in different proportions (with no revoke at all), depending upon W's decision, which may depend upon the scoring (and you make an argument why W might be more likely to duck at one scoring form), then you can include that in the percentages. In ACBL you'll just have to plump for 9 or 10; in such a jurisdiction 9 (as the TD ruled) isn't obviously wrong. Even in a weighted jurisdiction, I wouldn't be surprised by a ruling of 100% of 9 at MPs.

But actually this is a case of two revokes in the same suit. L64B2 tells us that there is no rectification for a second revoke in the same suit. But under L64C we may adjust for equity in the case of the second revoke. Directive from the WBF tells us that equity in the second revoke comes from the position between the first and the second revokes, (albeit that the WBF directive on this has been miswritten; fortunately in the present case the miswrite doesn't affect anything). After the first revoke, Declarer is due a rectification trick from the first revoke (64A2). So at that point, Declarer can make 10 tricks, even if W takes his HA, being 9 natural tricks plus a 10th from the rectification for the first revoke.

So I believe that the correct ruling in this case is 10 tricks, possibly with a small percentage of an 11th trick, if you think that W might sometimes duck the HA even without a trump to control the diamonds.

The key point here is that Declarer is due his rectification trick from the first revoke, and the offender is not allowed to take that back back from him by making another revoke, even if it is a revoke the laws tell us is a revoke not subject to rectification.

[mgoetze]

I didn't quite understand what you said the TD's ruling was.

Let's look at this slowly, South made 8 tricks, plus one automatic penalty trick for the first revoke, makes nine (Law 64A2). Law 64C obviously does not apply to the first revoke as he can never take more than those 9 without a revoke, West having 4 top tricks.

The second revoke does not carry an automatic penalty (Law 64B2). Now what South claims is that without the second revoke he would have made 9 tricks plus one penalty trick is 10. This seems to be obviously true to me, diamonds were good and he can get to dummy losing only one heart. So Law 64C can be applied to the second revoke (it is not 100% clear from the text but I think it is established practice to apply it with reference to the equity after the first revoke). The question is, without the second revoke, is it possible West might have ducked the heart and let South take 10 tricks + 1 penalty trick for a total of 11? Well, maybe, but I don't really think so, and besides, I think that 10 tricks is quite "sufficient compensation".

So I rule 10 tricks.

[barmar]

It's not related to the ruling, but when describing the play the normal order to list the cards is in the order that they were played, not WNES. So in your post, it looks like West led out of turn on trick 5, but obviously that's not what you intended.

[bluejak]

 mgoetze, on 2011-August-30, 05:26, said:

I didn't quite understand what you said the TD's ruling was.

Let's look at this slowly, South made 8 tricks, plus one automatic penalty trick for the first revoke, makes nine (Law 64A2). Law 64C obviously does not apply to the first revoke as he can never take more than those 9 without a revoke, West having 4 top tricks.

You are West, defending. You take two club tricks, ♦A then another diamond. Declarer draws trumps and leads the ♥J. You?

If you take the ♥A declarer will make nine tricks. If you duck smoothly he will take ten or eight - and if he thinks you would play the ace if you had it, eight is more likely than ten. So perhaps ducking is correct.

So I think saying declarer can never take more than nine is not correct.

[ggwhiz]

South led the J♥, West DID duck. South DID play the Ace. 10 tricks, end of story.

The contention by West that he ducked because he still had the trump he revoked with (surely he's realized it by now) smacks of being very naive or trying to pull a fast one. Flying with the Ace and returning a ♥ does the same thing. Could he have been going for 2♥ tricks AND the 10♠? AND a 1 trick penalty?

Maybe too harsh a judgment for a "low level player" but if it's just possible, he can't win this ruling.

Doesn't the law cater to awarding 2 tricks if you win one with the card you revoked with anymore?

[mgoetze]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-03, 12:14, said:

South led the J♥, West DID duck.

This sounds like a lead up to an 11 trick ruling...

Quote

South DID play the Ace.

... huh? ...

Quote

10 tricks, end of story.

... huh?!?

Maybe you could explain how many tricks you are awarding for what?

[blackshoe]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-03, 12:14, said:

Doesn't the law cater to awarding 2 tricks if you win one with the card you revoked with anymore?

Quote

Law 64A1: When a revoke is established and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player*, 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.

* A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this law.

[pran]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-03, 12:14, said:

[...]
Doesn't the law cater to awarding 2 tricks if you win one with the card you revoked with anymore?

That particular part of the law was removed in 2007

[blackshoe]

No. What was removed was the provision that if your partner wins the revoke trick and later you win a trick with the card you should have played but did not (which I would not call "the card you revoked with"), it's a two trick penalty.

[ggwhiz]

 mgoetze, on 2011-September-03, 15:19, said:

Maybe you could explain how many tricks you are awarding for what?

It is reasonable for the first ♥ trick to be played the same way as at the table but without the ♠10 in play, declarer makes 10 tricks. Not unreasonable for west to duck trying for 2♥ tricks on declarer mis-guessing and getting zero instead.

Saying he only ducked because of the trump control is a red herring IMO.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-04, 06:38, said:

No. What was removed was the provision that if your partner wins the revoke trick and later you win a trick with the card you should have played but did not (which I would not call "the card you revoked with"), it's a two trick penalty.

I may have misunderstood.

What was removed was: "if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side"

In other words: If the offender won a later trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick then the penalty was the same as if the offender had actually won the revoke trick. (It didn't matter which of the other three players actually won the revoke trick.)

[mgoetze]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-04, 07:37, said:

It is reasonable for the first ♥ trick to be played the same way as at the table but without the ♠10 in play, declarer makes 10 tricks. Not unreasonable for west to duck trying for 2♥ tricks on declarer mis-guessing and getting zero instead.

Saying he only ducked because of the trump control is a red herring IMO.

OK, so it still sounds like you are ruling 11 tricks.

[ggwhiz]

 mgoetze, on 2011-September-04, 15:13, said:

OK, so it still sounds like you are ruling 11 tricks.

Declarer lost the first 3 before the revoke happened. In the spirit of the law changes (I hope?) I'm not going back beyond that but give him 10 on the equity side.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2011-September-04, 13:43, said:

I may have misunderstood.

What was removed was: "if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side"

In other words: If the offender won a later trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick then the penalty was the same as if the offender had actually won the revoke trick. (It didn't matter which of the other three players actually won the revoke trick.)

That's the effect, yes. But ggwhiz referred to "the card you revoked with", which to me means not the card that should have been played, but the card that was played, and which was in fact a revoke.

Quote

1997 Law 64A: When a revoke is established:

1. Offending Player Won Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player, (penalty) after play ceases, the trick on which the revoke occurred, plus one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side, are transferred to the non-offending side.

2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

The reference to "the card you revoked with" invokes 64A1; you're talking about a provision of 64A2.

[aguahombre]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-04, 15:28, said:

Declarer lost the first 3 before the revoke happened. In the spirit of the law changes (I hope?) I'm not going back beyond that but give him 10 on the equity side.

This surely feels right. Is it?

[Vampyr]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-04, 15:28, said:

Declarer lost the first 3 before the revoke happened. In the spirit of the law changes (I hope?) I'm not going back beyond that but give him 10 on the equity side.

The laws never, as far as I know, permitted restoring tricks lost before the revoke.

[WellSpyder]

 Vampyr, on 2011-September-05, 21:52, said:

The laws never, as far as I know, permitted restoring tricks lost before the revoke.

That depends when you think a trick is lost, I guess. If 3 hands have already played to a trick and it is being won by the second player, then you might assume the trick has already been "lost" by the other side. But if the 4th hand revokes the trick can still be transferred.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 64A: When a revoke is established:
1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player*, 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* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

* A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this law.

The emphasis is mine, and shows that the law speaks of transferring the trick on which the revoke occurred, and possibly a subsequent trick, but not any trick whose ownership was established prior to the trick on which the revoke occurred. Also, if the offending side wins no tricks at or after the revoke trick, no tricks are transferred.

[barmar]

The real point he was trying to make was that this aspect of the revoke laws has never changed -- it's never reached back to tricks prior to the one containing the revoke.