Colorado Springs Ruling the Game

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Revoke- Player got excessive penalty, but would've made mistake anyway
What do you think [1 vote(s)]

2 trick penalty
0.0%
3 trick penalty
0.0%
4 " " " "
100.0%
5 " " " "
0.0%
6 " " " "
0.0%
7 or more trick penalty-- big "0" for N-S!!!
0.0%


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Revoke- Player got excessive penalty, but would've made mistake anyway
Permalink   
 


Hi:

At a recent club game, the hand was as follows (hands rotated):

DUMMY (north)
S: Axx
H: x
D: Qxxx
C: AKTxx

DECLARER
S: KQJxx
H: xxx
D: Axxx
C: Jxx

The contract was four spades doubled. I, West, lead a small club. It went to partner's winning Queen.  After pulling a 3-2  trump suit ending in dummy, declarer led the C-A. On this, he pitched a heart, establishing a revoke. Then, he continued with the KT, pitching the remainder of the Hearts. Both defenders were then looking at each other in confusion, since only 11 clubs seemed to exist. On the final club, declarer overtook in his hand with the Jack. He then came to this position in his hand:

xx
---
Axxx
x

He'd already cashed 3 clubs and 3 trumps. After cashing one more club, the D-A, and two more spades, he claimed his contract. Obviously, there should be a two trick penalty and an automatic first down just for the revoke, but how much more should we get for rectification? At the table, we got three tricks back, for -3 or 500. That was a "0", for 4H is cold for 620. For the record, the C-Q was a tripleton offsides. What should the score have been?



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink   
 

Sorry... Declarer's hand should actually be:

KQJxx
xxx
Axx
Jx

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink   
 

In addition, the declarer actually only got 9 tricks: 5 spades, 1 diamond, and four clubs. Also, sincle declarer wouldn't've been able to ruff the hearts in dummy (since he pulled trump) had the revoke not occurred, does that play into the penalty?


__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink   
 

Sorry again: 5+4+1=9??? He actually did get 10 tricks... but two tricks in the revoke plus a few hearts should get a large penalty.

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink   
 

... and automatic first down!!

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Date:
Permalink   
 

Hi Burke,
 
  I'm going to answer this in two parts, because I want to clarify, and seperate the first part, it's so very important.

  In this case, there is NOT an automatic 2 trick penalty (rectification), there is only a 1 trick rectification.  The ONLY time there is automatically a 2 trick transfer is when, the OFFENDER wins the revoke trick, (contributes the highest trump to the trick), AND, the offening SIDE wins the revoke trick and at least one or more tricks subsequent to the revoke.

  This is a change from the laws prior to the Sept, 2009 laws.  The law USED to be: if the offender takes a trick with a card he could have contributed to the revoke trick, then that and one of any subsequent tricks will be transferred.  This would be the situation you'ver outlined - and no longer applies.

Bill



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Date:
Permalink   
 

Part two:

  The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge don't recognize offsides, 4 downs, touchdowns, touchbacks, or endzones....no 1st down, automatic or otherwise.  No automatic first down, no 15 yards, no roughing the passer (although you are allowed to ruff the leader). 

  The laws require us, the directors, to EITHER apply the appropriate rectification under the laws, OR restore equity (determine the most likely outcome, and adjust the board to THAT result), had the revoke not occurred.

  Under no circumstances do we both restore equity, and then apply the penalty. 

  Since the trumps were "drawn, ending in dummy", I would assume that the "equitable" result would be making 4 - 5 spades, 4 clubs, and 1 diamond.  The non-offenders are entitled to rectification or equity, whichever is better for them.  Therefore - 4S X, down 2 seems to be the best result possible for the non-offenders, and is the correct ruling.

Bill



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 19
Date:
Permalink   
 

Correction: 4S x -1, not down 2.  There is a 1 trick transfer, against the actual result of making 4.

Bill

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 17
Date:
Permalink   
 

Bill-- Thanks for your posts. I realized that the director's ruling was correct on Sunday as Nick explained it to me. Thanks for clarifying.

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink   
 

The result I remember giving at the tournament was -1, not -3. :)


Nick

__________________
Burke Snowden

Date:
Permalink   
 

I agreed with Nick!!!



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard