[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-March-31, 19:07, said:

I don't deny there was a revoke. I'm saying that attention has not been drawn to it.

It seems to me that you are treating the words "attention drawn to the revoke" as though they say or mean "attention drawn to fact that a revoke has taken place", whereas I'm not doing so.

You may say that I'm taking a rather literal reading of the laws in advancing this view - I might even agree. But I think that we ought to start with what the laws actually say. And in this instance your interpretation arguably might disadvantage a non-offending side.

[blackshoe]

What was the irregularity? The revoke, yes? Does the question "having no spades?" draw attention to a revoke? What if the player didn't revoke? What if he did? Why should the answer to "did he draw attention to the revoke?" be "yes" if he did and "no" if he didn't? And once those questions are answered, what if he says "I have no spades"? If he's right, there's been no revoke, so attention could hardly have been drawn to one.

Let me ask you. Dummy ask declarer if he has any spades. Declarer says no. Are you going to call the director if you're dummy? A defender? Declarer? I submit that none of the players at the table should call the director unless either a defender is reasonably sure declarer did in fact revoke, or declarer later realizes he was mistaken, and he did revoke. In the latter case, if the revoke has not been established, he should correct it immediately, and if it has been established, he might as well wait until after the play, since nothing can really be done about it until then anyway. Though I suppose one might argue that the information that declarer has revoked might prove useful to the defense, so he should call right away. Not sure the law says that, though.

[aguahombre]

O.K., let's stick with the big "he" in question here.. Dummy.

Declarer, 4th to play, ruffs trick one.
"No Spades, Partner?" -- Part of Dummy's allowed things to do. It is too late to prevent the irregularity, but not too late to prevent the revoke from being established for a 2-trick penalty.

Declarer, has a Spade, but says, "No".
Dummy knows, because of the auction, that Declarer has a Spade. He asks Declarer to check again, and Declarer finds the Spade.

Dummy, IMO, has crossed the line and violated his charge -- not to be the one who draws attention to the irregularity (which he knew had occurred). I don't see anything in writing which allows the TD to treat the revoke as "established"; but I sure believe that but for Dummy's violation it would have become established in the next few seconds.

Ruling, please.

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-March-31, 22:16, said:

Does the question "having no spades?" draw attention to a revoke? What if the player didn't revoke? What if he did? Why should the answer to "did he draw attention to the revoke?" be "yes" if he did and "no" if he didn't?

Isn't the answer to your last question obvious?

In the first case there was a revoke, and attention was drawn to it. In the second, there was no revoke to draw attention to, just as you go on to illustrate in the rest of your paragraph. What's the problem with that? You highlight the issue exactly - you just seem unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

Your second paragraph indicates, I think, where the confusion lies. You're still concerned with what was known by the players at the time, and I'm not. We do not need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture in order to settle the objective test of "was attention drawn to the revoke?", which can be done in exactly the way you set out in your first paragraph. We do not need to know the answer to this at the time, only when it becomes in point later on.

[campboy]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 03:44, said:

We do not need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture in order to settle the objective test of "was attention drawn to the revoke?"

You obviously do need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture, because "attention" is a state of mind.

[Lanor Fow]

A revoke is not following suit when one can. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit. Attention has not been drawn to the fact that declarer could have followed suit. As such attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke. Drawing attention to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit is necessary, but not sufficient, to draw attention to the revoke

[PeterAlan]

 campboy, on 2016-April-01, 04:52, said:

You obviously do need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture, because "attention" is a state of mind.

No. The act of saying "Having none, partner?" of itself draws attention to the play in question (especially when it elicits a response). Bear in mind that it is only to the advantage of the non-offending side (if in fact there has been a revoke) that such attention has been drawn. We do not want to compound the issue further by allowing the offending side to suggest that, despite this exchange, the state of their opponents' mind is such that attention has somehow nevertheless not been so drawn.

But that wasn't what I was alluding to, which was simply that such an act draws attention to the revoke notwithstanding that the players may be unaware at the time that a revoke has in fact taken place.

[PeterAlan]

 Lanor Fow, on 2016-April-01, 05:18, said:

A revoke is not following suit when one can. Attention has been drawn to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit. Attention has not been drawn to the fact that declarer could have followed suit. As such attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke. Drawing attention to the fact that declarer hasn't followed suit is necessary, but not sufficient, to draw attention to the revoke

Please see discussion above where this has already been addressed. In brief, declarer's action in not following suit when he should is what constitutes a revoke (see Law 61A) - nothing more is required, so it is both necessary and sufficient. Attention may not be being drawn to the fact that a revoke has taken place, but that's not the same thing as a revoke itself.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2016-April-01, 00:47, said:

O.K., let's stick with the big "he" in question here.. Dummy.

Declarer, 4th to play, ruffs trick one.
"No Spades, Partner?" -- Part of Dummy's allowed things to do. It is too late to prevent the irregularity, but not too late to prevent the revoke from being established for a 2-trick penalty.

Declarer, has a Spade, but says, "No".
Dummy knows, because of the auction, that Declarer has a Spade. He asks Declarer to check again, and Declarer finds the Spade.

Dummy, IMO, has crossed the line and violated his charge -- not to be the one who draws attention to the irregularity (which he knew had occurred). I don't see anything in writing which allows the TD to treat the revoke as "established"; but I sure believe that but for Dummy's violation it would have become established in the next few seconds.

Ruling, please.

Dummy has, as you say, exceeded his authority under Laws 42 and 43. So he gets a PP (Law 43B1) for violation of Law 43A1{c}. In addition, dummy may no longer warn declarer not to lead from the wrong hand (Law 43B2{a}) or ask declarer if he has revoked (Law 43B2{b}). The revoke has not been established (Law 63A), so must be corrected (Law 62A). The revoke card is returned to declarer's hand (Law 62B2). Law 43B2{b} does not apply to this card. There is no further rectification.

What would have happened in the next few seconds if dummy had kept his mouth shut after his first (legal) question is not relevant.

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-March-31, 22:16, said:

Let me ask you. Dummy ask declarer if he has any spades. Declarer says no. Are you going to call the director if you're dummy? A defender? Declarer? I submit that none of the players at the table should call the director unless either a defender is reasonably sure declarer did in fact revoke, or declarer later realizes he was mistaken, and he did revoke. In the latter case, if the revoke has not been established, he should correct it immediately, and if it has been established, he might as well wait until after the play, since nothing can really be done about it until then anyway.

It was an incident of this sort that caused me to generate the OP, which is derived from it. What happened was that declarer revoked at trick 2 by ruffing (a club with a heart trump) and when asked by dummy said that she had no clubs when in fact she still held one. She then played on. This was the second board of a 3-board round, and the defenders only recognised that they had been misled when they discussed the hand after playing the third board. Yes, they could have realised at the end of the second hand if they had been fully on the ball, but it had ended with declarer claiming by saying "I have only trumps left"; the defenders hadn't counted declarer's trumps sufficiently accurately to realise that she must still have held one plain card, and accepted the claim.

The question is then how the TD adjusts the result. If attention has been drawn to the revoke by the question and answer, then neither 64B4 nor 64B5 apply, and rectification is under 64A; otherwise (the defenders have called to the third board) it is under 64C.

Hence my earlier remark, which you appear to be echoing: "This is where the problem lies - the defenders may well not [call the TD], because they do not realise that there has nevertheless actually been a revoke."

For completeness, I'll note that the scenarios of the OP of course apply mutatis mutandis to revokes / enquiries by a defending side.

[blackshoe]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 03:44, said:

Isn't the answer to your last question obvious?

In the first case there was a revoke, and attention was drawn to it. In the second, there was no revoke to draw attention to, just as you go on to illustrate in the rest of your paragraph. What's the problem with that? You highlight the issue exactly - you just seem unwilling to accept the obvious answer.

Perhaps the answer isn't as obvious as you think it is.

 PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 03:44, said:

Your second paragraph indicates, I think, where the confusion lies. You're still concerned with what was known by the players at the time, and I'm not. We do not need to bring the state of mind of the players into the picture in order to settle the objective test of "was attention drawn to the revoke?", which can be done in exactly the way you set out in your first paragraph. We do not need to know the answer to this at the time, only when it becomes in point later on.

What "point later on"? Later on, someone may call the director and ask her to determine whether there was a revoke on this trick. Or not. If no one calls, the whole question is moot. If someone calls, the director will be dealing with an established revoke. I suppose the whole point of this exercise now is that you want to give a PP to dummy for "calling attention to a revoke" when all he did was exercise his right to ask declarer if he has a card of the suit that was led. Or is there something else? NB: if dummy persists in his questioning, we have a different situation. See my answer to Agua upthread.

[blackshoe]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 06:33, said:

But that wasn't what I was alluding to, which was simply that such an act draws attention to the revoke notwithstanding that the players may be unaware at the time that a revoke has in fact taken place.

But only if the revoke actually happened. If there was no revoke... I am reminded of Schrodinger's cat.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 07:16, said:

What would have happened in the next few seconds if dummy had kept his mouth shut after his first (legal) question is not relevant.

Perhaps that is written somewhere as being not relevant. But isn't "equity" the act of restoring what would have happened if the unlawful participation by Dummy had not occurred? I wonder if the SB could successfully explain how a 2-trick penalty was imminent and had become "equity".

Maybe that is warped, but Paul would probably be amused.

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 07:25, said:

What "point later on"? Later on, someone may call the director and ask her to determine whether there was a revoke on this trick. Or not. If no one calls, the whole question is moot. If someone calls, the director will be dealing with an established revoke. I suppose the whole point of this exercise now is that you want to give a PP to dummy for "calling attention to a revoke" when all he did was exercise his right to ask declarer if he has a card of the suit that was led. Or is there something else? NB: if dummy persists in his questioning, we have a different situation. See my answer to Agua upthread.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the expression "in point". It just means "relevant". Yes, if someone calls, the director will be dealing with an established revoke: the question then is how rectification is determined, and that depends on whether or not attention has been drawn to the revoke.

That is all I am concerned with; I have no interest in PPs or any such complication here, and I am avoiding being drawn into commenting on aguahombre's variant scenario.

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 07:28, said:

But only if the revoke actually happened. If there was no revoke... I am reminded of Schrodinger's cat.

Indeed. But if there was no revoke, there's no issue anyway. We're only concerned with the case where there was.

[Lanor Fow]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 06:41, said:

Please see discussion above where this has already been addressed. In brief, declarer's action in not following suit when he should is what constitutes a revoke (see Law 61A) - nothing more is required, so it is both necessary and sufficient. Attention may not be being drawn to the fact that a revoke has taken place, but that's not the same thing as a revoke itself.

I've bolded the pertinent part. Noone has drawn attention to the 'when he should' part, just the not followed suit part. Therefore attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 07:25, said:

Perhaps the answer [to the question "Why should the answer to "did he [dummy] draw attention to the revoke?" be "yes" if he [declarer] did [revoke] and "no" if he didn't?"] isn't as obvious as you think it is.

I think that the answers you gave within the question are correct: "No" (not applicable; there's no issue) if he didn't revoke; "Yes" if he did. As to why, there's no need to elaborate on the "No", and I've already set out why I think that the answer to the other case is "Yes" rather than being "No" as well.

[PeterAlan]

 Lanor Fow, on 2016-April-01, 08:28, said:

I've bolded the pertinent part. Noone has drawn attention to the 'when he should' part, just the not followed suit part. Therefore attention hasn't been drawn to the revoke

It isn't pertinent at all. The question of whether he should have followed suit at the time of the putative revoke is a matter of fact that can be settled at any time, and does not in any way depend on whether attention has been drawn to it. It simply comes down to whether or not he had a card of the suit in question.

A revoke is no more than the act of failing to follow suit. You seem to be confusing it with the combination of that act and the recognition of it.

[blackshoe]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 08:10, said:

the question then is how rectification is determined, and that depends on whether or not attention has been drawn to the revoke.

How so?

[PeterAlan]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 08:41, said:

How so?

Take the case of the actual incident I mentioned. The defenders did not recognise that there had been a revoke until after they had called to the next board. If attention has already been drawn to the revoke by dummy's question, then Laws 64B4 & 5 do not apply, and rectification is 2 tricks under Law 64A1. If not, then rectification is under Law 64C, in this case 1 trick.

Law 61B2(a) does not impose any time restriction on dummy asking declarer, who may already have established the revoke. In your world, we then have the situation that an inaccurate answer by declarer (as happened here) may give rise to an advantage - if it's not recognised in time - that an accurate answer does not.