[dickiegera]

Declarer is in a 5 diamond contract. I am on lead and take the first 3 tricks [Ace,King Hearts & Ace of Spades]

While pulling trump I revoke on 3rd trump. Later I trump a club having only 1 club.

Dummy immediately points it out and after 6 or so seconds calls the director.

The way I understand the rules is that if dummy calls attention to an irregularity during play Declarer will be advised that should he gain on the board , a procedural will at least offset the gain will be assessed against his side.

Does this mean that declarer is down 2?
Or just down 1
Or making 5 diamonds?

No other tricks for defense are possible after 1st 3 tricks.

Thank you

[pran]

 dickiegera, on 2016-December-20, 07:44, said:

Declarer is in a 5 diamond contract. I am on lead and take the first 3 tricks [Ace,King Hearts & Ace of Spades]

While pulling trump I revoke on 3rd trump. Later I trump a club having only 1 club.

Dummy immediately points it out and after 6 or so seconds calls the director.

The way I understand the rules is that if dummy calls attention to an irregularity during play Declarer will be advised that should he gain on the board , a procedural will at least offset the gain will be assessed against his side.

Does this mean that declarer is down 2?
Or just down 1
Or making 5 diamonds?

No other tricks for defense are possible after 1st 3 tricks.

Thank you

The way I understand your post you should find

Law 64B1 said:

B. No Rectification
There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:
1. if the offending side did not win either the revoke trick or any subsequent trick.

Interesting.
It means that no trick won by the offending side before the revoke occurred can ever be transferred to "pay" for the revoke. (Note that Law 64C is irrelevant in this situation because "equity" must reflect the situation at the time of the revoke, not earlier.

Declarer will be down 1, the trick won by your side after your revoke is transferred.

(And I doubt that Dummy's remark before play has ended will have had any real impact on the play, so I would only give Dummy a warning.)

[barmar]

Dummy pointing out the revoke has no effect on the rectification for the revoke. The TD can give dummy a PP for violating procedure, and that could negate the benefit that the NOS would get from the revoke rectification, but the OS would still get the result from the revoke law.

[mycroft]

Well, with the argument I had a while back, that's potentially not quite true.

I really want the "after violation ... [of] (L43)A2 above" clause removed in L43B. I think it is at least arguable that we are ruling as if it weren't there.

If that's the case, then L43B3 says that there is no rectification. I would be very happy if that were the case. I don't guarantee that it is.

In this case, however, if you took the revoke trick, you by equity have to give it back; since you didn't take a trick after, there can be no penalty otherwise. -1. That ruling is independent of who drew attention to the irregularity. If dummy didn't know, and could reasonably be expected not to know, their restrictions, that would be it, save some serious education (including how to deal with this particular case - which is "wait until you're no longer dummy, *then* draw attention to it and call the TD"). If that is not the case, then I would educate with the standard penalty for the area.

No, the procedural penalty should not be used to "adjust the score" (after all, it does not accrue to the defenders); it should be independent of the issue and its resolution. However, I would investigate the play when adjusting via L64C as if knowledge of the revoke was UI (as it was drawn attention to illegally). Wouldn't matter here, but it might in other cases.

[billw55]

This kind of result has always troubled me. By only restoring the result to what it would have been absent the revoke (equity), we create a sort of incentive to revoke. If declarer notices, nothing is lost, but if not, something is gained. I sometimes think that there should be a mandatory penalty of at least one trick. But I have not thought every situation through of course.

[pran]

 billw55, on 2016-December-20, 11:45, said:

This kind of result has always troubled me. By only restoring the result to what it would have been absent the revoke (equity), we create a sort of incentive to revoke. If declarer notices, nothing is lost, but if not, something is gained. I sometimes think that there should be a mandatory penalty of at least one trick. But I have not thought every situation through of course.

And how would you score a grand slam bid and won with (all) thirteen tricks if you in addition include a mandatory penalty trick for an established revoke committed by a defender (of course without winning the revoke trick)?

One overtrick?

[blackshoe]

"The way I understand the rules is that if dummy calls attention to an irregularity during play Declarer will be advised that should he gain on the board , a procedural will at least offset the gain will be assessed against his side."

Your understanding is incorrect.

Relevant laws:

Law 81C: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:
…
3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

Law 9A: 1. Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.
2. Unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.
3. When an irregularity has occurred, dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).
4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

Law 9B: 1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. (b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
(.c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
(d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Law 42B3: Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.

Law 43A1: (a) Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play.
(b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.
© Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Law 43B1: Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2 above.

Law 61A: Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke.

Law 63A1: A revoke becomes established when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).

Law 63B: Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played.

Law 64B2: When a revoke is established 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.

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

In addition, when I am directing I impose the following policy: when the director arrives at the table, the person who called him has the floor. Others will be given the chance to speak in due time; until then they should keep quiet.

So, the facts as I understand them:

1. Dummy drew attention, during the play, to an irregularity by a defender.
2. Dummy then called the director.
3. The irregularity was that the defender revoked in the trump suit.
4. The revoke trick was won by declarer.
5. The defender subsequently won a trick.

At this point I would tell the players to finish the hand, and I would stay at the table. After the play, another fact becomes evident: declarer, who apparently was in 5♦, is down 2. Now I would tell the table that one trick is transferred to the declaring side (Law 64B2), so declarer is now down 1. AFAICS, Law 64C regarding restoration of equity does not apply, so that's the end of that part of the ruling.

Now we deal with dummy. If dummy has any experience at all, such that I would expect him to know he is not permitted to call attention to an irregularity, I would give him a PP in matchpoints or imps, as appropriate, because he has done something that the law says he may not do (Law 43A1{b}), and the laws say that doing that is a serious matter. If he is very inexperienced, I would tell him the law, and then give him a warning - and make sure he knows he only gets one warning.

Law 43B3 has nothing to do with this case; dummy did not violate any provision of Law 43A2.

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2016-December-20, 11:45, said:

This kind of result has always troubled me. By only restoring the result to what it would have been absent the revoke (equity), we create a sort of incentive to revoke. If declarer notices, nothing is lost, but if not, something is gained. I sometimes think that there should be a mandatory penalty of at least one trick. But I have not thought every situation through of course.

Since most rectifications in the Laws simply restore equity, this is a general problem. The revoke law at least has some cases where the result of the rectification can be worse for the offending side than if they didn't revoke, so there's some risk.

The Laws generally presume that the game is being played by honorable people. There's a law saying you're not allowed to violate any laws deliberately, even if you're willing to pay the penalty. It's practically impossible to enforce such a law if we assume players will lie.

[weejonnie]

Last night I had a case where the revoker subsequently won a trick with the card that they should have played to the revoke trick. Declarer was a bit aggrieved as they thought they should have had one trick transferred for the revoke AND the trick won with the card that should have been played (2 tricks). (Which I think was in an older version of the laws - my experience is all post 2007.)

It was a busy night (as a playing director)

Opening lead out of turn. Declarer decided to forbid suit led while defender retained the lead.
Opening lead out of turn. Declarer decided to become dummy (This was a first for me - maybe people actually do read the EBU 'Bridge' magazine!)
Revoke - revoker trumped declarer's lead - 2 tricks transferred.
Insufficient bid (at my table) - decided to accept the call so the bidding went 1♥ - 1♠ - 1♦ - 1♠... This must be a pretty rare occurrence when a player bids a suit at the one level, it becomes trumps and they aren't declarer!
Having to read out parts of law 76.

The most amusing play (for me) was (after 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ P 2NT P 3NT) laying out a dummy with 8 diamonds in it.

WRT the OP - I think blackshoe has it right in this case. The TD has to correct any irregularity no matter how they become aware of it (81C3). (Maybe the OP is confusing the situation when dummy indicates a play to declarer e.g. by commenting on a feature of the hand or reaching for a card before it is called.)

[pran]

 weejonnie, on 2016-December-21, 16:28, said:

Last night I had a case where the revoker subsequently won a trick with the card that they should have played to the revoke trick. Declarer was a bit aggrieved as they thought they should have had one trick transferred for the revoke AND the trick won with the card that should have been played (2 tricks). (Which I think was in an older version of the laws - my experience is all post 2007.)

Yes, there was most likely some confusion from the older version of the laws which indeed included the clause: "or won a later trick with a card that could legally be played to the revoke trick".

But the tricks won by the revoking side before the revoke trick has always been "sacred" and can in no circumstance be transferred to the non-offending side.

 weejonnie, on 2016-December-21, 16:28, said:

It was a busy night (as a playing director)

Opening lead out of turn. Declarer decided to forbid suit led while defender retained the lead.
Opening lead out of turn. Declarer decided to become dummy (This was a first for me - maybe people actually do read the EBU 'Bridge' magazine!)
Revoke - revoker trumped declarer's lead - 2 tricks transferred.
Insufficient bid (at my table) - decided to accept the call so the bidding went 1♥ - 1♠ - 1♦ - 1♠... This must be a pretty rare occurrence when a player bids a suit at the one level, it becomes trumps and they aren't declarer!
Having to read out parts of law 76.

The most amusing play (for me) was (after 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ P 2NT P 3NT) laying out a dummy with 8 diamonds in it.

I think you will appreciate that life as TD at times can be rather amusing.

 weejonnie, on 2016-December-21, 16:28, said:

WRT the OP - I think blackshoe has it right in this case. The TD has to correct any irregularity no matter how they become aware of it (81C3). (Maybe the OP is confusing the situation when dummy indicates a play to declarer e.g. by commenting on a feature of the hand or reaching for a card before it is called.)

The only point on which I (slightly) disagree with blackshoe is where my impression is that he will hand out an IMP or MP penalty (as the case may be) unless the offender (dummy) is very inexperienced.

I have found it advantageous to (normally) give PP just in the form of warnings and limit score deductions to (persistent) violations of Law 90B8.

[blackshoe]

I think two things: when the laws say a player must not do something, and he does it anyway, he should get a PP unless there are extenuating circumstances. Inexperience is an extenuating circumstance. The other thing is that if you give a warning, you should make it clear that further violations of the same kind will result in a PP in points, and then you should follow up on that. It is pointless to simply perpetually give warnings, and will actually undermine the authority of the TD and the players' respect for the rules of the game.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2016-December-22, 08:09, said:

I think two things: when the laws say a player must not do something, and he does it anyway, he should get a PP unless there are extenuating circumstances. Inexperience is an extenuating circumstance.

OK.

 blackshoe, on 2016-December-22, 08:09, said:

The other thing is that if you give a warning, you should make it clear that further violations of the same kind will result in a PP in points, and then you should follow up on that. It is pointless to simply perpetually give warnings, and will actually undermine the authority of the TD and the players' respect for the rules of the game.

What makes you think that I don't?

My "second" warning to the same player (or even to the other player in the same pair) is substantial. It doesn't matter if it happens in a completely different event at a later time.

(And the way I understand the laws a warning is indeed the mildest form of PP, but it is still a PP.)

[barmar]

 pran, on 2016-December-22, 10:02, said:

What makes you think that I don't?

Perhaps this: "limit score deductions to (persistent) violations of Law 90B8"

Even if you're as diligent as blackshoe, probably the vast majority of directors are not, so it needs reminding. I can only think of about 2 times our club has given anyone a real PP. I think I did it once when a table had started a new board when I'd already told them that the round had ended and they shouldn't.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2016-December-22, 10:02, said:

OK.


What makes you think that I don't?

My "second" warning to the same player (or even to the other player in the same pair) is substantial. It doesn't matter if it happens in a completely different event at a later time.

(And the way I understand the laws a warning is indeed the mildest form of PP, but it is still a PP.)

I don't think that you don't, Sven. My "you" in the previous post was not specific to any particular person.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2016-December-22, 10:13, said:

Perhaps this: "limit score deductions to (persistent) violations of Law 90B8"

Even if you're as diligent as blackshoe, probably the vast majority of directors are not, so it needs reminding. I can only think of about 2 times our club has given anyone a real PP. I think I did it once when a table had started a new board when I'd already told them that the round had ended and they shouldn't.

There's a good case for making that a DP.