[NemoJames]

After a massive arguement at our club last night I have been trying to clarify the current rule on revoking. Have I got this correct:

OLD RULE
If a player revoked then you go back to that revoke and replace it with the card they should have played, the non offending side is awarded an extra trick but ALSO
the card that was played incorrectly becomes a penalty card so is placed face up and played the next time that suit is played. This seems logical to me

NEW RULE
The non offending side is awarded an extra trick but the incorrect card is no longer treated as a penalty card so the player can just put it back in his hand. But the TD does have the discretion to award more tricks if he feels the non offending side might have won more tricks.

[RMB1]

 NemoJames, on 2018-July-28, 06:19, said:

OLD RULE
If a player revoked then you go back to that revoke and replace it with the card they should have played, the non offending side is awarded an extra trick but ALSO
the card that was played incorrectly becomes a penalty card so is placed face up and played the next time that suit is played. This seems logical to me

NEW RULE
The non offending side is awarded an extra trick but the incorrect card is no longer treated as a penalty card so the player can just put it back in his hand. But the TD does have the discretion to award more tricks if he feels the non offending side might have won more tricks.

These are both rules in the current laws.

If the revoke is discovered in time, the revoke is corrected by offender playing a legal card to the trick and the revoke card become a penalty card.

If the revoke is discovered later, the revoke cannot be corrected and the cards stay as played, at the end there is a one or two trick penalty.

The details are more complicated and should be read from the law book. The laws change over time but these laws have been much the same over time, except for how many penalty tricks in the second case.

[Stephen Tu]

Laws of duplicate contract bridge are fairly easily to find online.
You aren't even close to correct. There are basically two cases:
1. Revoke caught before *established*. A revoke is established when either partner of the offending side plays to the next trick. Before this, you can speak up and say "I failed to follow suit". Then you correct the play to the previous trick, play continues as normal, there are no trick penalties whatsoever. But if defending, the card you initially played is treated as a major penalty card, must be played at first legal opportunity, if partner has/gains lead before it is played declarer has options regarding lead restriction. (No penalty cards for a declarer).

2. Revoke established. Revoking side has played to next trick. Now you can no longer go back to correct the revoke. It's play on at this point. It's normally a zero to two trick penalty, depending on if revoking side won zero tricks including the revoke trick onward (no penalty), and if the revoker won the trick he revoked on or not. If the revoker won the trick, it's 1 trick penalty if no further tricks were won by his side, else 2. If did not win the trick, it's 1 trick if a subsequent trick was won by offending side. Additional tricks may be awarded if insufficient to restore equity, non-offending side still would have done better even including the penalties if revoke had not occurred.

Also basically no revoke penalties if on trick 12, it's just corrected to what the forced plays should have been.

Gets more complicated if both sides revoked.

[NemoJames]

I am referring to a revoke that is established. Yes it is easy to find the rules online but not so easy to understand them particularly when there is so much conflicting information out there and it is amazing how so many different players have different interpretations.

My main confusing relates to what happens if the revoke was in not following a trump suit. As far as I can see :

Non offending side draws trumps and offending side revokes by not playing his last trump card. Offending side doesn't win the trick so there is not automatic trick adjustment.

3 tricks later the offending side trumps a trick with the trump card he shouldn't have. At that point revoke is agreed and established so I assume the offending side loses that trick and the trump card doesn't count as a trump ?

Play continues to the end and if the offending side wins one or more tricks following the revoke then a one trick penalty is awarded to the non offending team.

Is that correct ?

[dokoko]

 NemoJames, on 2018-July-29, 02:21, said:

I am referring to a revoke that is established. Yes it is easy to find the rules online but not so easy to understand them particularly when there is so much conflicting information out there and it is amazing how so many different players have different interpretations.

My main confusing relates to what happens if the revoke was in not following a trump suit. As far as I can see :

Non offending side draws trumps and offending side revokes by not playing his last trump card. Offending side doesn't win the trick so there is not automatic trick adjustment.

3 tricks later the offending side trumps a trick with the trump card he shouldn't have. At that point revoke is agreed and established so I assume the offending side loses that trick and the trump card doesn't count as a trump ?

Play continues to the end and if the offending side wins one or more tricks following the revoke then a one trick penalty is awarded to the non offending team.

Is that correct ?

No.

The trick ruffed with the trump card that shouldn't be there is won by the offending player. He will lead to the next trick. The one trick penalty applies, removing the trick in question at the end.

If the TD judges the non-offending side damaged - i.e. they would have won more tricks without the revoke - then he will replace the final score by what he thinks is appropriate; there are defined procedures how he should work that out.

In the former laws there was a two trick penalty for winning a later trick with a card that could have legally been played instead of revoking; this part of the rule has now disappeared.

[NemoJames]

So in other words a player is free to revoke without worrying about a penalty ? The trick he won is awarded to the non offending side at the end of the game but he would have lost that anyway. I must be missing something here.

[gordontd]

 NemoJames, on 2018-July-29, 05:09, said:

So in other words a player is free to revoke without worrying about a penalty ? The trick he won is awarded to the non offending side at the end of the game but he would have lost that anyway. I must be missing something here.

A revoke should never leave the non-offending side worse off after rectification, but it will not always leave them better off (in fact it has over time become less common for them to be better off).

[blackshoe]

Laws 61 through 64 cover revokes. They're a bit long, but they're not, IMO, hard to understand.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2018-July-29, 18:01, said:

Laws 61 through 64 cover revokes. They're a bit long, but they're not, IMO, hard to understand.

Apparently the OP disagrees.

[barmar]

 NemoJames, on 2018-July-29, 05:09, said:

So in other words a player is free to revoke without worrying about a penalty ?

As stated in the introduction, the primary purpose of rectifications for irregularities is to restore equity, not to punish offenders. An implicit assumption is that offenses are generally unintended. Violating laws intentionally is considered cheating, and it's addressed through other means, not via routine rectifications at the table.

[TylerE]

 NemoJames, on 2018-July-29, 05:09, said:

So in other words a player is free to revoke without worrying about a penalty ?

No, see Law 74. It's a violation of the laws to intentionally violate the laws.

[Vampyr]

 dokoko, on 2018-July-29, 02:44, said:

In the former laws there was a two trick penalty for winning a later trick with a card that could have legally been played instead of revoking; this part of the rule has now disappeared.

Yes, what a pity.

[661_Pete]

First thing to say is, a TD always has discretion to adjust if he/she thinks an offender has gained an unfair advantage. This is true whatever the infraction, and whatever the reason for the TD being summoned.

I think both the statements in the OP are wrong, but this has been dealt with by subsequent posts.

I'd also like to make the point, that if declarer suspects that a defender has revoked, he/she has the perfect right to challenge the defender at any time (same is true of the defender's partner, and a defender may challenge declarer). What happened to me, once (with a partner I've never played with since), was that he, as dummy, 'told me off' for making a remark indicating that I suspected a defender of having revoked (at the time, I didn't know which one). I believe my partner was completely and utterly in the wrong there. And he's a 'qualified' TD!

But it doesn't matter, seeing as I've never been back to the club where I had the misfortune to encounter him.....

[Vampyr]

 661_Pete, on 2018-August-01, 12:55, said:

First thing to say is, a TD always has discretion to adjust if he/she thinks an offender has gained an unfair advantage. This is true whatever the infraction, and whatever the reason for the TD being summoned.

I’m afraid you are incorrect. If there is a defined procedure like there is with revokes, the TD follows it and does not have the discretion to adjust the score further, unless to restore equity to the non-offenders. Note that restoring equity does not allow for transferring tricks as well.

Now, the TD can issue a procedure penalty, but to do so for a revoke would be very unusual, unless the player is a serial offender and can be deemed to regularly pay insufficient attention to the game. If you think that a revoke is made deliberately in the hope that no one will notice, since the current law makes it a “heads I win, tails I break even” situation for the revoker, this is a disciplinary matter resulting in a probable ban.

[barmar]

 661_Pete, on 2018-August-01, 12:55, said:

I'd also like to make the point, that if declarer suspects that a defender has revoked, he/she has the perfect right to challenge the defender at any time (same is true of the defender's partner, and a defender may challenge declarer). What happened to me, once (with a partner I've never played with since), was that he, as dummy, 'told me off' for making a remark indicating that I suspected a defender of having revoked (at the time, I didn't know which one). I believe my partner was completely and utterly in the wrong there. And he's a 'qualified' TD!

He was wrong on two counts. First, he's wrong about the Law -- Law 61B1 says "Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led." However, it's usually not a good idea, since you lose the automatic transfer of a trick due to the revoke. But the misplayed card becomes a penalty card, and occasionally you may be able to take advantage of that to get an even better result than you would from the revoke penalty.

And second, dummy isn't permitted to comment on anything like that. Dummy has very limited rights, and correcting declarer on proprieties of the game is not one of them.

[661_Pete]

 Vampyr, on 2018-August-02, 05:03, said:

If you think that a revoke is made deliberately in the hope that no one will notice, since the current law makes it a “heads I win, tails I break even” situation for the revoker, this is a disciplinary matter resulting in a probable ban.

I'd better not voice my 'suspicions' regarding the incident I referred to above!

What happened was that I was drawing trumps (having an 8-card fit) and both defenders 'showed out' on the third round. Clearly the defence aren't winning the revoke trick, so if established, at most one trick gets transferred - correct?

But to leave a trump card at large would have presented problems. If I let the revoke become established, isn't that the procedure? Assume I can't afford to play a fourth round. What if the defender 'ruffs' with it at the wrong time and messes up my communication with dummy say?

I think I did the right thing, alerting the revoke before it gets established.

[barmar]

 661_Pete, on 2018-August-08, 05:35, said:

But to leave a trump card at large would have presented problems. If I let the revoke become established, isn't that the procedure? Assume I can't afford to play a fourth round. What if the defender 'ruffs' with it at the wrong time and messes up my communication with dummy say?

The automatic revoke penalty gives you back one of their tricks. If the revoke allows them to take 2 or more tricks than they would have without the revoke, because of the communication problem it causes for you, the director should adjust the score to what it would have been without the revoke.

Law 64C1 spells this out explicitly:

Quote

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

Basically, they're not supposed to be able to gain by revoking. At best they can break even.

[parsonsdav]

 dokoko, on 2018-July-29, 02:44, said:

In the former laws there was a two trick penalty for winning a later trick with a card that could have legally been played instead of revoking; this part of the rule has now disappeared.

This is a terrible change in the rules, effectively leaving things up to the tournament director to decide on how many tricks to award. Consider a situation in which RHO has the singleton Ace of trump and LHO has the singleton King of trump. A trump is led from the dummy and RHO revokes, allowing LHO to win the King of trump. The "stupid rules" say that since the revoker didn't win the trick (his partner did), there is only a one trick penalty (unless director decides otherwise). Why on earth would there be an automatic two trick penalty if the trump Ace won and his partner revoked by not playing the trump King, but only a one trick penalty otherwise?! After the revoke, there is no longer an option for defenders to play stupidly... the director decides how many tricks based on smart play of the defenders. Does this "new rule" really sound fair? It's hogwash.

[AL78]

I am in the UK and am not aware of any change to the laws relating to revokes, and having looked in the 2017 law book it says what I have always understood:

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, 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 player19 then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

In other words, if the revoke card won the trick, one trick is transferred. If the offending side won tricks post-revoke, another trick is transferred. There are cases where no tricks are transferred which are if the revoke occurred at trick 12 or if the revoke trick and no following tricks were won by the offending side.

[mycroft]

There are those who do not like the new rule (although the "automatic two trick penalty" is long gone, the "two if you won a trick later with a card that could have been played..." is only 20 years gone). They may not be wrong (although this law is *much easier* to rule in practise. There was a concern that it would lead to more equity rulings; it turns out that we check a fair bit more, but the time saved finding out "did this player (not his partner) win a trick with a spade after trick 7" makes up for it and more), but it's the current law.

"Two if you ruffed, one if you didn't" (barring overruffs) is simple and easy to explain and enforce.

The situation with the A and the K doesn't work the way described above. If a trump is led, and a player forgets to play the K, even if partner wins the A, it's a one-trick penalty - the revoker did not win the trick (partner did). And it would be unlikely that the K doesn't take a trick, so it's "back to equity" with no penalty at all. Just the same as if the player revoked on a non-trump suit with the K and partner won the Ace. It's only two tricks if, instead of following suit, the offender plays a trump and wins the trick.

There are (many) other exceptions to "automatic trick adjustment", most of which you as a player need not know (and at least two of which I as a director have not seen). Best to call the director over and let them rule it.