bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: Director Discovers Revoke

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Director Discovers Revoke ( 10:55:18 TueJul 9 2002 )

Would appreciate your advice on the following: Can a director while contemplating a frivolous claim of damage use 81C6 to penalize a revoke not discovered by any of the players?

N dealer: 1D - 3C - P - 3H, all pass. North led the K of D, south played the 3; North led A of D, south played the 8. North continued with a diamond and South ruffed it. Play continued to the end of the hand. Table result: 3H, -1.

Director called. EW stated: 1. they were damaged because North played low-high with a doubleton stating it was illegal to do so without a pre-alert as stated in the new ACBL alert procedure change. 2. Had they known it was a doubleton they would have trumped it. [Nothing was ever said about the revoke!] The "expert" player insisted I refer to the new alert procedure. I told them to score the actual result and I would get back to them.

........................Q7
........................52
........................AK754
........................QJ62
....AJT..................................543
....AKJT63.............................8
....JT6..................................Q2
....9.....................................AKT8743
.........................K9862
.........................Q974
.........................983
.........................5

During the following round, I got back to this problem. Nowhere could I find his statement of a pre-alertable discarding low from a doubleton. I decide he is confused by the leading low from a doubleton as a pre-alert in the alert procedure changes.

However, when I look at the hands, I see that South has indeed revoked. The players did not know of the revoke, even the person who actually revoked (a known, weak, yet very ethical player).

I adjusted the score to +170 for EW taking the revoke into consideration. Was I correct?

Thank you,

Dini Romito

[Edited By bluejak at 10:15:36 Fri Oct 4 2002]

bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Director Discovers Revoke [copied from Bravenet site] ( 11:05:17 TueJul 9 2002 )

Yes, I think so. You are required by Law 81C6 to deal with all matters that come to your notice.

Incidentally, I agree with you over the unnecessary pre-alert. There is a type of bullying good player (fortunately very rare in England :smile:

but sadly a bit more common in North America :frown:

smile: that tries to use the Laws and regulations to his advantage. Best is always to produce the Law or regulation in print and read it out.

The general approach to a revoke not noticed by the players is to wait until the next hand or round has started so there will be no penalty tricks for the revoke but to restore equity under Law 64C, ie return tricks lost by the revoke but no more. If you think ten tricks would have been made without the revoke your ruling is right. :smile:

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

[jmm]

Re: Director Discovers Revoke [copied from Bravenet site] ( 10:52:20 WedJul 10 2002 )

Hi all,

is it possible to apply a split score like:

3 H - 1 for E-W
3 H + 1 for N-S

in this situation?

In fact, the non offending side has lost his right to penalize the revoke... I had allways the doubt...

thanks

bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Director Discovers Revoke [copied from Bravenet site] ( 16:45:02 WedJul 10 2002 )

An interesting idea!

No, I do not think so. If you read the revoke Laws 61 to 64 then up to a certain moment there is an automatic penalty: after that moment htere is no automatic penalty, but Law 64C still applies [and when the Correction Period mentioned in Law 92B has expired nothing can be done].

So there is no way you can penalise one side the automatic penalty wiothout giving the other side the benefit.

Of course, Law 64C refers to assigning an adjusted score. A split score is not totally impossible though it is difficult to think of a case, and a weighted score is possible. But those are assigned scores, nothing to do with the automatic penalty tricks.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union