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.
Quote from: Martin YOUNG on 05 April, 2011, 12:12 AM
Sorry Mike, I got your name mixed up with my friend's name. My sincere apologies, sorry, sorry and sorry.
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.
QuoteLaw 63A: A revoke becomes established:Declarer, after revoking, conceded the remaining tricks. Per Law 63A3, that establishes the revoke.
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.
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.