[schulken]

This has happened to me twice in the six months that I have been working as a club director, the more recent being last week. I was called to the table after play was completed. The defenders noted that declarer had ruffed K♣ which declarer's RHO led to trick 11. Declarer then led her last trump (trumps had been drawn earlier) and then A♣! In reality, she could have claimed when the lead came - actually she could have claimed prior to the lead since she would either ruff the lead or take it if it was a ♣. I ordered two tricks back to the NOS as stipulated in L64, which declarer solemnly accepted. Other experienced TDs have told me this is the correct ruling, but it strikes me that it is more punishment for the offender than equity to the NOS. Perhaps there should be punishment for declarer not keeping up with the hand being played, but that's not stipulated in the Laws - equity is. Since ACBL carves out an exception to twelfth-trick revokes, should there be one of eleventh (or perhaps earlier) trick revokes when declarer cannot possibly lose a trick? Thoughts appreciated as always.

[iviehoff]

 schulken, on 2012-May-21, 09:04, said:

Since ACBL carves out an exception to twelfth-trick revokes, should there be one of eleventh (or perhaps earlier) trick revokes when declarer cannot possibly lose a trick? Thoughts appreciated as always.

It isn't ACBL, it is the laws of bridge that makes the Trick 12 exception - Law 62D. This is just one example of several kinds of revoke not subjected to automatic rectification. Others include revokes by dummy and subsequent revokes in the same suit.

We only give equity for revokes when the NOS is insufficiently compensated (L64C). The law explicitly says (L12B2) that equity is not a permissible reason to avoid giving the specified rectification.

L 12 B 2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side

L 64 C: 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.

[Lanor Fow]

The law's state that their primary purpose is to restore equity (to non-offenders is the assumption along with this). This doesn't mean that a secondary purpose cannot be to punish offenders in certain cases. The Revoke law is one that will often go above and beyond equity, but as you say, perhaps there should be a punishment for not following the play. The law writers seem to have thought so.

[bluejak]

 schulken, on 2012-May-21, 09:04, said:

This has happened to me twice in the six months that I have been working as a club director, the more recent being last week. I was called to the table after play was completed. The defenders noted that declarer had ruffed K♣ which declarer's RHO led to trick 11. Declarer then led her last trump (trumps had been drawn earlier) and then A♣! In reality, she could have claimed when the lead came - actually she could have claimed prior to the lead since she would either ruff the lead or take it if it was a ♣. I ordered two tricks back to the NOS as stipulated in L64, which declarer solemnly accepted. Other experienced TDs have told me this is the correct ruling, but it strikes me that it is more punishment for the offender than equity to the NOS. Perhaps there should be punishment for declarer not keeping up with the hand being played, but that's not stipulated in the Laws - equity is. Since ACBL carves out an exception to twelfth-trick revokes, should there be one of eleventh (or perhaps earlier) trick revokes when declarer cannot possibly lose a trick? Thoughts appreciated as always.

The purpose of penalty tricks in the revoke Law is partly to penalise. Players should learn to follow suit.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 10:43, said:

The purpose of penalty tricks in the revoke Law is partly to penalise. Players should learn to follow suit.

I would put it a (slightly) different way, although with the same result:

The purpose of penalty tricks in the revoke Law is to simplify the rectification for revokes by establishing the minimum of tricks to be transferred from the offending to the non-offending side depending on the actual situation.

[barmar]

Although the details of the revoke law has changed over the years, it's been pretty consistent in being very simple to apply -- a trained monkey can practically do it. You just answer a couple of simple questions about who won the revoke trick and subsequent tricks, and out pops the number of tricks to transfer. There are plenty of other laws where the TD is required to figure out how play might have gone absent an irregularity, but for whatever reason the lawmakers have always felt that this one should be handled mechanically (but there's still 64C to allow increasing the penalty if deemed necessary).

[blackshoe]

64C is not for "increasing the penalty", it's for restoring equity for the non-offending side when the penalty isn't adequate to do that.

This is a simple ruling, so I'm moving it to that forum.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-21, 19:06, said:

64C is not for "increasing the penalty", it's for restoring equity for the non-offending side when the penalty isn't adequate to do that.

I guess my use of the word "penalty" was inappropriate. I just meant that it only allows increasing the number of tricks transferred, there's no law that allows decreasing them.

[ArtK78]

 barmar, on 2012-May-22, 07:57, said:

I guess my use of the word "penalty" was inappropriate. I just meant that it only allows increasing the number of tricks transferred, there's no law that allows decreasing them.

In fact, as has been already pointed out, there is a law which prevents decreasing them.

 iviehoff, on 2012-May-21, 09:17, said:

It isn't ACBL, it is the laws of bridge that makes the Trick 12 exception - Law 62D. This is just one example of several kinds of revoke not subjected to automatic rectification. Others include revokes by dummy and subsequent revokes in the same suit.

We only give equity for revokes when the NOS is insufficiently compensated (L64C). The law explicitly says (L12B2) that equity is not a permissible reason to avoid giving the specified rectification.

L 12 B 2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side

L 64 C: 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.

[mycroft]

Heh - Partner pulled a "ruff it, then lead it" this weekend; but at trick 12. I made sure to call the TD (the hand was over, I'm allowed to point out irregularities now) because it was the right thing to do, but also because trick 12 is odd...

A TD at my club says sometimes, to take the edge off the two trick penalty, "you know, if you wait a few tricks, they might not notice. But leading the suit you just ruffed, even I'd notice that one." I've picked that one up, for appropriate tables.

My favourite line for this issue was the declarer (who is usually perfectly straight-laced at the table, and would *never* say something like this, I thought) who called me and said "my opponents have discovered a new way to cross-ruff the hand. T. played a club, and D. ruffed, and then D. played a club, and T. ruffed." I just about lost it *at the table*.

She came and apologized to me, saying she shouldn't have said that (and to the SB, she shouldn't); I pointed out that with those opponents (we all know each other well), and this director, I was sure it wasn't a problem.

[gordontd]

 mycroft, on 2012-May-22, 11:45, said:

A TD at my club says sometimes, to take the edge of the two trick penalty, "you know, if you wait a few tricks, they might not notice. But leading the suit you just ruffed, even I'd notice that one."

They did this last night in a match of the first division of the London Super League. Only dummy appeared to notice.

[bluejak]

I was playing in an EBU event in London many years ago, maybe 40 or so, when a player cross-ruffed his way to make a slam. He had a stiff spade in dummy and two little ones in hand. However, the stiff spade in dummy was hidden, so he ruffed his two little spades in dummy, found the stiff spade, ruffed it in hand and the opponents called the TD. After one of the opponents lost his temper and could be heard in Paris Harold Franklin, the EBU chief TD appeared.

Apparently in those days everyone was responsible for dummy, dummy's revokes had no penalty element, no equity provision, result stood, nicely played on a cross-ruff. Everyone in the room heard the argument, and I think it fair to say only two people did not think it funny.

[jillybean]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-23, 05:15, said:

Apparently in those days everyone was responsible for dummy, dummy's revokes had no penalty element, no equity provision, result stood, nicely played on a cross-ruff.

I've heard this used in a ruling in the past year, I assume from your comment that it is not part of the laws today?

[bluejak]

Absolutely not. Whatever applied in the 1970s, nowadays only dummy is responsible for dummy. If anyone suggests otherwise, they need to show me the Law.

[RMB1]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-23, 07:47, said:

I've heard this used in a ruling in the past year, I assume from your comment that it is not part of the laws today?

Yes, if only implicitly (by omission).

The laws say that declarer is responsible for choosing cards to play from dummy but otherwise dummy's cards remain the responsibility of dummy. Law 7 says that players are responsible for their own cards and no law says other players are responsible for dummy. In particular, Law 41D tells dummy how to display his hand: failure to do so properly (e.g. so that not all cards are visible) is breach of procedure and if so damages the defenders there can be rectification/adjustment.