News:

January 2024
The ABDA has relaunched this forum with upgraded software, appearance and features. All the old content remains. Users should log in and update their membership profile.
Only financial members of the ABDA can register to be part of this forum. Non-members can browse the open sections of the forum and post questions to "Ask a Director" and "Online Directing" without registration.

Main Menu

Modify message

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 128 KB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Confirm you are a bridge player by entering the score for 1NT making 7 tricks?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Martin YOUNG
 - 05 April, 2011, 12:04 AM
Thanks Mark, the declarer can correct herself immediately. But she was sleeping with her eyes open, thus she was careless and let the revoke to be established. One trick to her oppenont. May I say the Golden rule of Bridge playing again?
Posted by Ed Reppert
 - 04 April, 2011, 11:20 PM
Quote from: eric on 04 April, 2011, 10:50 PM
This situation the revoke has not been established because the declarer has not played the card to the next trick nor called a card from the dummy for the next trick.  So, revoked is not established.

You are mistaken.
QuoteLaw 63A: A revoke becomes established:
1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).
2. when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.
Declarer, after revoking, conceded the remaining tricks. Per Law 63A3, that establishes the revoke.
Posted by eric
 - 04 April, 2011, 10:50 PM
Martin, the declarer could not have penalty card but could be revoked, which could cause trick(s) transferred.
This situation the revoke has not been established because the declarer has not played the card to the next trick nor called a card from the dummy for the next trick.  So, revoked is not established.  The declarer did not follow suit but she did not won the trick.  I will say no penalty in this claim.
Posted by Martin YOUNG
 - 04 April, 2011, 07:25 PM
O! Mark, you are the tough Director with a wooden heart. It is a bad luck to the Declarer. Tell her the golden rules no. 1, "Never ever sleep on the Bridge table."
Posted by MIP
 - 04 April, 2011, 05:13 PM
Martin, look, of course declarer could have corrected the revoke immediately but she was careless. If she had her wits about her this would never have happened. If she had simply called for the ace of clubs and said "you can have the rest" this would not have happened. She was careless, failed to follow suit, and then when she conceded the rest of the tricks the revoke was established.
Posted by Martin YOUNG
 - 04 April, 2011, 04:54 PM
How about saying "Correction! Corrrection! Correction!" immediately.  Sorry, I pulled out the wrong suit of card. I am the declarer and I don't have penalty card. I can pull the wrong card back and play the C suit! ::)
Posted by Ed Reppert
 - 04 April, 2011, 04:10 PM
Quote from: Mike Phillips on 04 April, 2011, 12:29 PM
The revoke law is tough. Under 64A2, as the revoke trick was not won by the offending player (declarer) but his side won that trick, there is indeed a one trick transfer. Equity doesn't come into it and the TD has no discretion in the matter.

Unfortunately carelessness does not go unpunished but of course it is always open to sympathetic opponents to waive the penalty in the circumstances you have quoted. I know plenty of good players who would do that.

Not to waive the penalty, but rather to request that the director do so. Laws 10A and 81C5. As a director, I would want a pretty good reason to deny such a request, of course.
Posted by MIP
 - 04 April, 2011, 12:29 PM
The revoke law is tough. Under 64A2, as the revoke trick was not won by the offending player (declarer) but his side won that trick, there is indeed a one trick transfer. Equity doesn't come into it and the TD has no discretion in the matter.

Unfortunately carelessness does not go unpunished but of course it is always open to sympathetic opponents to waive the penalty in the circumstances you have quoted. I know plenty of good players who would do that.
Posted by Lali
 - 04 April, 2011, 11:36 AM
1NT contract .... declarer has taken the 1st 6 tricks.... is in dummy, plays the AC but does not follow in hand because of carelessness.... essentially thinking of conceding the rest of the tricks.  Director ruled it was a 1 trick penalty because they won the revoke trick so 1NT -1 when they couldn't lose that trick in NT.