[helium]

Hi. Have a question about revoke : me an my partner bid 4h and she played the first 8 tricks and had only harts and ace of spade left on her hand, left opp had 2d 2sand a club, right opp had 2s2c and the ace of harts. My p now played spades from dummy and insted of using the ace she trumph the trick and played a hart to rho's ace and then claimed. Rho call the turnament dir and he gave us a 3???? Card penalty. Is this correct? She could never loos any other tricks then the ace of trumfh nomatter how she played. Can someone pls give me a link or somthink so i can see whats correct penalty in this case?



Thanks my friends. Regards helium;)

Ps if someone can answer in dutch i would love it;)

[PeterAlan]

Sorry, my Dutch is not good enough.

There's a 2-trick penalty for the revoke (Law 64A1) and the other side gets a trick with the ♥A as well. It shouldn't be more than that.

[paulg]

Expanding on the previous comment:

Quote

LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A. Revoke Becomes Established
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).

This means that the revoke was established.

and Law 64A1 says

Quote

LAW 64 - PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A. Rectification following a Revoke
When a revoke is established:
1. and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player*, at the end of the play the trick on which the revoke occurred is transferred to the non-offending side together with one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side.

As declarer revoked and won the offending trick in his hand, the revoke trick and one additional trick won by the declaring side is transferred to the non-offending side.

[helium]

No ur reading it wrong. My p played spades from the dummy and ruffed insted of using the ace of spades ( my p would always win this trick) hi then played hart to the opps ace and claimed. So we did NOT get a trick that was opps, just a mistake of using trump instead of the ace.

Anyone know what the rules are on this? Tanks for all replyes;)

[Lanor Fow]

PaulG is accurate. The fact that in normal play declarer wouldn't have got any more tricks is irrelevant to the revoke laws. As defenders won both the revoke trick and a trick afterwards, two tricks are tranfered. This is regardless of whether they would have won them anyway.

The only time we adjust this to give equity, is when non-offenders would have got more tricks than those tranfered if the revoke had not happened.

[Zelandakh]

helium, on 2012-May-23, 07:12, said:

my p would always win this trick if they had followed suit with the ace and the opps did not ruff it with a small trump

FYP.

The point is that your partner did not follow suit with the ace so the trick is credited to the defending side. Since the revoke card took the trick a second trick is also given to the defending side. The defending side still have the trump ace and thereore get a third trick. If you think that the penalty is harsh (they get 3 tricks instead of the 1 they would have taken through normal play) then you are correct. Perhaps the memory will help your partner to follow suit next time. Nonetheless this is the correct ruling and moreover it is a Simple Ruling.

[VixTD]

I don't think anyone is reading it wrong. I understand the position is something like:

.............♠xxxxx ♥- ♦- ♣-

♠xx ♥- ♦xx ♣x..........♠xx ♥A ♦- ♣xx

.............♠A ♥xxxx ♦- ♣-

Hearts are trumps. A spade is led from dummy and ruffed by South (revoke).
South plays their cards out (any order will do) and loses a trick to the ♥A.

The director is called and reads the law. Did offender win the revoke trick with the revoke card? (Yes) Did offender win any subsequent tricks? (Yes) So the revoke trick and one of those subsequent tricks is transferred to the non-offending side.

[gwnn]

Je hebt gelijk dat soms is de buit niet 2 slagen maar 3 of misschien meer. Soms lijkt de eindresultaat een beetje oneerlijk voor de schuldige paar, maar wat is eigenlijk eerlijk? De speel wordt gestopt van je eigen fout en dus wij weten eigenlijk niet wat de juiste resultaat zou zijn. De regels maken zeker dat in ieder geval de unschuldige paar krijgt dezelfde of betere uitslag dan zonder de verzaken, dat is een vorm van eerlijk of?

If my broken Dutch is not good enough for some reason:

Spoiler

You are right that sometimes the fine is not 2 but 3 or maybe even more tricks. Sometimes the final result seems unfair for the offending side, but what is really fair? The board was interrupted by your own mistake and therefore we don't really know what the right result should be. The rules make sure that in any case the non-offending side gets the same, or better a result than without the revoke, isn't that a form of fairness?

[paulg]

The forum is littered with problems associated with claiming, but one good reason to claim is to prevent yourself making careless mistakes like this when there is no doubt about how many tricks you will make.

[bluejak]

The forum is littered with threads about claiming solely because there are so many claims and claim rulings are interesting. It is worth noting that based on my experience as a player, fewer than one in a thousand claims get challenged.

[pran]

We could do without the completely irrelevant references to claim laws here.

VixTD said:

[...]
Hearts are trumps. A spade is led from dummy and ruffed by South (revoke).
South plays their cards out (any order will do) and loses a trick to the ♥A.

The director is called and reads the law. Did offender win the revoke trick with the revoke card? (Yes) Did offender win any subsequent tricks? (Yes) So the revoke trick and one of those subsequent tricks is transferred to the non-offending side.

The only thing he ought to emphasize is that once the revoke is established no trick is changed in any way until play has been completed.

So defenders shall end up with the trick won by A♥ plus the two tricks to be transferred because of the revoke (correctly calculated by VixTD), i.e. a total of three tricks.

[helium]

VixTD, on 2012-May-23, 07:23, said:

I don't think anyone is reading it wrong. I understand the position is something like:

.............♠xxxxx ♥- ♦- ♣-

♠xx ♥- ♦xx ♣x..........♠xx ♥A ♦- ♣xx

.............♠A ♥xxxx ♦- ♣-

Hearts are trumps. A spade is led from dummy and ruffed by South (revoke).
South plays their cards out (any order will do) and loses a trick to the ♥A.

The director is called and reads the law. Did offender win the revoke trick with the revoke card? (Yes) Did offender win any subsequent tricks? (Yes) So the revoke trick and one of those subsequent tricks is transferred to the non-offending side.

No my p dint play the ace of spades from dummy, he played a small spade and ruffed instead of using the ace of spade whitch he had left in his hand. Opps had no harts exsept the ace so they could not ruff (they also had spades so both opps followed suit.

[barmar]

helium, on 2012-May-24, 03:29, said:

No my p dint play the ace of spades from dummy, he played a small spade and ruffed instead of using the ace of spade whitch he had left in his hand. Opps had no harts exsept the ace so they could not ruff (they also had spades so both opps followed suit.

No one said he played the ace of spades from dummy. VixTD said "A spade is played from dummy" -- that's the word "a", not short for "ace" in this case.

[joostb1]

gwnn, on 2012-May-23, 07:24, said:

Je hebt gelijk dat soms is de buit niet 2 slagen maar 3 of misschien meer. Soms lijkt de eindresultaat een beetje oneerlijk voor de schuldige paar, maar wat is eigenlijk eerlijk? De speel wordt gestopt van je eigen fout en dus wij weten eigenlijk niet wat de juiste resultaat zou zijn. De regels maken zeker dat in ieder geval de unschuldige paar krijgt dezelfde of betere uitslag dan zonder de verzaken, dat is een vorm van eerlijk of?

If my broken Dutch is not good enough for some reason:

Spoiler

You are right that sometimes the fine is not 2 but 3 or maybe even more tricks. Sometimes the final result seems unfair for the offending side, but what is really fair? The board was interrupted by your own mistake and therefore we don't really know what the right result should be. The rules make sure that in any case the non-offending side gets the same, or better a result than without the revoke, isn't that a form of fairness?

Your Dutch is quite good, although there are some minor mistakes. But I'm afraid that Norwegians understand it as good as the average Englishman.

[Trinidad]

In Dutch:

De leider speelde een kleine schoppen uit dummy en troefde in zijn hand. Dat is een verzaking. Toen de leider in de volgende slag speelde werd de verzaking voldongen. Dan kan de verzaking niet meer hersteld worden.
Na de verzaking kreeg de tegenpartij ♥A. Daarna maakte de leider zijn troeven en ♠A. Als we de verzaking niet mee tellen heeft de verdediging dus één van de laatste vijf slagen gemaakt.

We gaan nu kijken wat de gevolgen voor de verzaking zijn.
Vraag 1: Heeft de verzaker de slag waarin hij verzaakte gewonnen? Antwoord: Ja.
Vraag 2: Heeft de verzaker of zijn partner na de slag waarin verzaakt werd nog een slag gewonnen? Antwoord: Ja.

Nu zegt artikel 64A1 van de spelregels dat de verzaker twee slagen moet overdragen aan de tegenpartij. Als we de verzaking dus meetellen krijgen de tegenspeler dus 3 van de laatste 5 slagen en krijgt de leider er 2.

Het feit dat de leider zonder de verzaking altijd 4 slagen zou halen is leuk, maar helemaal niet relevant. Bij verzakingen wordt niet in eerste instantie naar herstel van schade gezocht. Er wordt ook (bewust) bestraft voor de verzaking. Kleur bekennen is zo fundamenteel in bridge dat de makers van de spelregels het een goed idee vinden om streng op te treden tegen verzakers.

Rik

P.S. Als je zoekt naar nederlandstalige antwoorden, dan kun je ook naar www.bridgeweb.nl gaan. Het bridgeniveau is op BridgeBase.com veel hoger, maar bij Bridgeweb.nl spreken ze Nederlands.