[haver]

I always let opps. undo before the next trick.
Now, at an offline tournament something has happened i'd like to hear your opinions about :
East playing 3NT, West is dummy. At the 7th trick South calls a club and none follows suit. At next trick South plays a diamond. Before covering from dummy, East calls the Tournament Director as he realizes that he has a club in his hand.
Question:
Can the Director take back the last, played trick already won by South to replay it, and winning by East who is clearly to be blamed for the situation?

[JRG]

I don't think this is a matter of opinion, but of "The Laws". I'm not a director and haven't memorized the Laws. I believe that when south plays to the 8th trick, the revoke is established. That is, one cannot "Undo".

[Cave_Draco]

Close but... http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/the_laws/...pter6.asp#law63

Calling the Director is always correct, ;D.

[JRG]

Quote

Close but... http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/the_laws/...pter6.asp#law63

Calling the Director is always correct.

Actually, I think it is worse than that. If you fail to call the director, you forfeit your rights (I've certainly heard that ruling in a club game).

So, now I understand why there is so much controversy and problems interpreting the Laws. I gather from following your link that:

When declarer played to the next trick, but before LHO played, RHO was allowed to correct the revoke but the attempted diamond discard becomes a penalty card.

So what redress does declarer have, having led to the next trick, if the corrected revoke means the opponent has won the trick. Despite the penalty for the opponent's exposed card, he has shown opponents a card they have no right to know about.

[Cave_Draco]

Redress? The Director decides...

Look up the Alcatraz Coup, anyone attempting it is BANNED!

If someone makes an honest mistake? Average minus is enough.

In the case cited, the offender did the best s/he could, if the subsequent cards made a difference... trust the Director.

[JRG]

Quote

Redress? The Director decides...

Look up the Alcatraz Coup, anyone attempting it is BANNED!

If someone makes an honest mistake? Average minus is enough.

In the case cited, the offender did the best s/he could, if the subsequent cards made a difference... trust the Director.

I know about the Alcatraz Coup (cute). However, the question is real one and one the average director may have trouble with. Let me give you a different example. There is apparently a site that directors can visit that discusses issues on interpretation of the Laws. My example was not the one that triggered the discussion that answered the question (that I am about to tell you of), but the Chief Director for the Central America and Carribean Bridge Federation was checking the site to see if there was a resolution of the problem (it was a friendly, private team game and I was playing with him).

OK. RHO leads the Queen of Spades out of turn. I chose not to accept the lead (and in fact forbade a spade lead). Now regardless of whether I had forbidden or demanded a spade lead, or allowed LHO to lead anything, the question is, "Is knowledge that RHO holds the QUEEN of Spades unauthorized information?".

It turns out, EVEN IF THE QUEEN OF SPADES is a penalty card, LHO is to treat knowledge of the Queen of Spades as U.I. Suppose he held J-10-8-x of spades and is going to lead it. Then since leading the Jack is a reasonable alternative, he is not allowed to lead the x.

So, back to my original question. What rules should apply to opponents who have learnt about a card declarer holds because they corrected a revoke?

I think it is a difficult question, because surely it depends on the level of the game. If declarer is reasonably experienced, he KNEW an opponent had revoked (because he can count to 13) and chose not to ask the opponent to correct it (presumably that means he was attempting to take advantage of the infraction). On the other hand, many beginners, and even intermediates, do not count all the suits.

[Laird]

Hello John

I'm surprised at you describing the Alcatraz Coup as cute!
I went to bridgeguys site to read about it for first time......to me its unethical play of the first water and anyone using it could never be described as a bridge player. However forewarned is forearmed and it is perhaps better to be aware of these 'rouses', sorry I mean cheating practices.
Is it not possible with online bridge to prevent these kind of mistakes, by the computer not allowing plays out of turn, revokes etc.... but then bridge may lose some of its sparkle without the challenges to recognised authority.

kind regards

John

[JRG]

Quote

Hello John

I'm surprised at you describing the Alcatraz Coup as cute!
I went to bridgeguys site to read about it for first time......to me its unethical play of the first water and anyone using it could never be described as a bridge player. However forewarned is forearmed and it is perhaps better to be aware of these 'rouses', sorry I mean cheating practices.
Is it not possible with online bridge to prevent these kind of mistakes, by the computer not allowing plays out of turn, revokes etc.... but then bridge may lose some of its sparkle without the challenges to recognised authority.

kind regards

John

I first read about the Alcatraz Coup in a humorous bridge article. By saying it was "cute", I in no way meant to imply I approved. On the contrary, when I read the article it was obviously cheating -- but that was the setting, a bunch of convicts playing bridge and what do convicts do, but cheat?

[Cave_Draco]

<So, back to my original question. What rules should apply to opponents who have learnt about a card declarer holds because they corrected a revoke?>

I don't know of a totally satisfactory answer, :-[.

Players are obliged to behave ethically, which is a pretty useless statement in itself. Persistent unethical behavour can be noted, but the odd lapse is only human. Players are not allowed to take advantage of Unauthorised Information and should bend over backwards to avoid doing so.

In the cases cited, the Director (or a Director) should "stick around" to make sure that no advantage accrues to the offending partnership; if such an advantage does accrue, it is within the Director's powers to "award" a score.

The Director's decision is FINAL; even if it is wrong.

In my experience, calling the Director is not done as often as it should be! Players should NOT rely on "We are all people of good will!" It is normally true, but the Director is in charge of the Tournament.

The last paragraph <If declarer is reasonably experienced, he KNEW an opponent had revoked (because he can count to 13) and chose not to ask the opponent to correct> opens a real can of worms! If Declarer has a "count" of RHO's hand and "knows" that s/he has revoked? Call the Director before playing a card?

[Cave_Draco]

Quote

Hello John

I'm surprised at you describing the Alcatraz Coup as cute!
I went to bridgeguys site to read about it for first time......to me its unethical play of the first water and anyone using it could never be described as a bridge player. However forewarned is forearmed and it is perhaps better to be aware of these 'rouses', sorry I mean cheating practices.
Is it not possible with online bridge to prevent these kind of mistakes, by the computer not allowing plays out of turn, revokes etc.... but then bridge may lose some of its sparkle without the challenges to recognised authority.

kind regards

John

The BIG problem with the Alcatraz Coup is that it is not illegal according to the Laws, it just takes advantage of a loophole! It is specifically banned. I don't know it's point-of-origin but, even before it was banned (when it wouldn't have been cheating), it would have been unethical.