[Zelandakh]

PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 08:37, said:

It isn't pertinent at all.

Peter, you keep writing stuff like this and it does not make it any the more true. You asked a question. It has been answered fully. You can keep telling everyone they are wrong as much as you like but they are not wrong, you are. Noone has drawn attanetion to the revoke, any more than asking the meaning of the auction after an insufficient bid draws attention to that. Attention has been drawn to the bid but not that it is insufficient; similarly here attantion has been drawn to the discard but not that it was a revoke. You can go through the law book and find plenty of examples of this type. It goes back to the fruit-bananas analogy but in plain language, your interpretation is wrong. You do not have to like it, just do not expect to get rulings based on your idea and please (PLEASE!) do not make rulings using this approach!

[barmar]

PeterAlan, on 2016-April-01, 08:37, said:

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.

But the issue isn't whether declarer did in fact revoke -- it's clear (after the fact) that he did. The issue is whether asking "No spades?" draws attention to the revoke.

Drawing attention to an irregularity means that you do something that causes the other players realize that the irregularity has occurred. But if dummy asks "No spades?" and declarer says "No", no one realizes that the irregularity has occurred. So attention has not been drawn to it.

Put another way: The question draws attention to the fact that declarer didn't follow suit, but it doesn't draw attention to the fact that he could have followed suit. So it hasn't drawn attention to both aspects of the definition of a revoke.

[campboy]

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

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.

No-one is suggesting that the OS get to say whether their opponents' attention has been drawn to the irregularity. If one of the NOS says that his attention has been drawn to the revoke, then it has. But if even NOS themselves don't think their attention has been drawn to a revoke, then it hasn't been.

As others have pointed out, "having none, partner?" can't draw attention to the revoke, because if it did dummy wouldn't be allowed to say it.

[blackshoe]

So? What is the legal remedy for this advantage?

[pran]

When Dummy asks Declarer who failed to follow suit if he is void in that suit then there are two possibilities:

Declarer answers "no" and corrects his unestablished revoke.
Or:
Declarer answers "yes" in which case Dummy's question is void (considered never asked).

If later during (or after) the play it is discovered that Declarer indeed committed a revoke this is handled in the regular way just as if Dummy never said anything in this connection.

Dummy's question is legal and not any source for UI, nor is it considered drawing attention to anything but the fact that Declarer failed to follow suit.

Attention to the revoke is drawn by Declarer if and when he confirms that he in fact has revoked or by any player who at any time discovers that a revoke has indeed occurred and draws attention to this fact.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-01, 11:17, said:

So? What is the legal remedy for this advantage?

Players should pay more attention to protect themselves. Eventually it should come to light that declarer has a card he could have played to the revoke trick. The TD should be called then, and he'll apply the rectification for an established revoke.

If an opponent revokes and you never notice, they win. "No spades, partner?" doesn't change that.

The purpose if allowing this question is clearly not for the benefits of the opponents, it's for the benefit of the revoking side -- it makes it less likely that the revoke will become established, which engenders a higher penalty, assuming attention is then drawn to the established revoke. Since the offending side is not required to draw attention to their own infractions, it's up to the opponents to notice this to get their advantage back.

[axman]

barmar, on 2016-April-01, 16:19, said:

Players should pay more attention to protect themselves. Eventually it should come to light that declarer has a card he could have played to the revoke trick. The TD should be called then, and he'll apply the rectification for an established revoke.

If an opponent revokes and you never notice, they win. "No spades, partner?" doesn't change that.

The purpose if allowing this question is clearly not for the benefits of the opponents, it's for the benefit of the revoking side -- it makes it less likely that the revoke will become established, which engenders a higher penalty, assuming attention is then drawn to the established revoke. Since the offending side is not required to draw attention to their own infractions, it's up to the opponents to notice this to get their advantage back.

I do not concur that benefit from the questioning the revoker lands solely upon the revoking side.

The predicate for mandatory correction (distinct from voluntary correction) of an unestablished revoke is the acknowledgment that the ueRevoke exists. The inquiry is the prelude to forcing the acknowledgment. Here is an occasion when it is to the benefit of the non revoking side:

Consider a contract of 6N where declarer has 15 tricks except that the defense has 7 spades if taken off the top. The SA being led where RHO discards a diamond. Here, it is to revoker's advantage to not acknowledge his revoke even if the inquiry is made; why? Because correction means a PC which creates a lead penalty against LHO- and voila! Declarer makes 6 instead of down five (six less the one trick penalty).

[aguahombre]

axman, on 2016-April-02, 09:43, said:

Consider a contract of 6N where declarer has 15 tricks except that the defense has 7 spades if taken off the top. The SA being led where RHO discards a diamond. Here, it is to revoker's advantage to not acknowledge his revoke even if the inquiry is made; why? Because correction means a PC which creates a lead penalty against LHO- and voila! Declarer makes 6 instead of down five (six less the one trick penalty).

What one trick penalty?

[axman]

aguahombre, on 2016-April-02, 10:13, said:

What one trick penalty?

If the revoke is not corrected in time <sic> it becomes established- ostensibly subject to a 1 trick penalty.

[weejonnie]

axman, on 2016-April-03, 13:53, said:

If the revoke is not corrected in time <sic> it becomes established- ostensibly subject to a 1 trick penalty.

In this case, if called - I would restore equity as per 64C. Under the circumstances (unless declarer was the Rueful Rabbit), I might also apply 72B1 - and issue a PP.

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

72B1
1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.