[Vampyr]

I was playing in a tournament recently, and a particular hand had almost come to an end. My partner and I had taken all the tricks we were entitled to much earlier in the hand.

For the last 5 or 6 tricks, declarer put the cards almost directly face down from his hand while calling a steady stream of cards he was discarding from dummy "diamond diamond diamond" etc. My partner and I, and possibly dummy as well, could not keep up. Everyone was on a different trick the whole time. Yes, of course we should have called the director, but it all happened so fast there was no time.

At one point during this charade, it appeared that my partner had won a trick. I think she had three cards left in her hand, declarer had two, and I had about five. My partner's card should have fallen under one of the ones the declarer had "kind of" played, but she was as confused as I was about what trick we were on.

The opponents called the director about this revoke. When we discovered that my partner's "winning" card should ha been played a trick or two earlier, we said that that was fine and that we were happy to concede that and all remaining (who knows how many) tricks. The director did not accept this though, and the opponents apparently were not satisfied, as there ensued a very lengthy discussion between the director and the opponents (about what I cannot say, as it was in Polish).

Should we have been permitted to concede at that point? Are we permitted to concede a trick that we have "won" via a revoke?

[jallerton]

From what you describe, it sounds as though declarer claimed with 5 or 6 cards to go, the "steady stream" of cards thereafter being his explanation of the order in which we planned to play his cards.

In that case, it's not a concession by the defence, merely agreement to declarer's claim.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2012-October-19, 00:09, said:

From what you describe, it sounds as though declarer claimed with 5 or 6 cards to go, the "steady stream" of cards thereafter being his explanation of the order in which we planned to play his cards.

In that case, it's not a concession by the defence, merely agreement to declarer's claim.

I did think that this might be the player's idiosyncratic way of claiming, but we couldn't really agree to it since we didn't see his cards (even as he was playing them). The cards he was calling were not cards from his hand, but merely discards from the dummy; the order in which he planned to play them was not very interesting to us.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-18, 14:19, said:

we said that that was fine and that we were happy to concede that and all remaining (who knows how many) tricks. The director did not accept this though, and the opponents apparently were not satisfied, as there ensued a very lengthy discussion between the director and the opponents (about what I cannot say, as it was in Polish).

What a waste of time. The worst that they can do to you is award you none of the last 6 tricks, and you had assented to that.

I've discovered in life that sometimes some people just won't listen when you are trying to give them all that they want. They have got it into their mind that they are going to have to argue about it. They assume that if you are saying anything at all it is to dispute it. So they just don't hear when you agree with them. I would imagine this is why they carried on discussing when there was nothing to discuss. Probably the best thing to do is sit silently until they stop talking and politely say "Yes of course you must have all the remaing tricks, we have never said anything different." I don't think there is anything you can do forcibly to close out an apparent ruling situation when they insist on discussing nonsense.

[Zelandakh]

When declarers try this trick I simply refuse to turn my card over for a few seconds to restore the pace to normal. The pace at which you play should be decided by you, not by declarer. If declarer continues calling cards at this point then it should be clear it is a claim.

In any case, your partner cannot revoke to a trick when you have not played to the previous trick given the stated facts (declarer has 2 cards, partner 3, you 5). Instead your partner's card is a penalty card (57A). I suspect that the discussion at the end is that declarer wanted the extra trick from the revoke due to ignorance of the revoke laws. It would have been polite for the Director to provide you with an explanation but, given that he did not, it would have been reasonable to ask for this, if only for peace of mind before starting the next board.

[blackshoe]

I had a player try this on me once. He wasn't claiming, just playing quickly — and he didn't hide his cards. I think I was about two tricks behind when I asked him to slow down - which he did. Of course, we didn't have a language barrier to deal with.

[pran]

Rapidly "playing" the remaining cards without awaiting opponents' plays to each of them is one commendable way of claiming the remaining tricks as it gives a precise "statement" on the intended line of play.

(In that way I completely agree with Jallerton earlier in this thread.)

In the actual case (if I remember it correct) I would have wound the play back to the point where declarer began his rapid "play" and ruled that he claimed at that point. I would have held declarer to his indicated sequence of playing his cards but allow opponents to (re-)select their plays without any strain.

[blackshoe]

Rapidly playing the cards is one thing. Rapidly playing the cards while not allowing the defenders to see their faces is another thing entirely.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-20, 08:09, said:

Rapidly playing the cards is one thing. Rapidly playing the cards while not allowing the defenders to see their faces is another thing entirely.

Agreed.
But I shall still consider, and handle it as a claim.

[blackshoe]

It does not meet any of the criteria in 68A, so it's not a claim. But I suppose that doesn't matter.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-20, 13:37, said:

It does not meet any of the criteria in 68A, so it's not a claim. But I suppose that doesn't matter.

I understood OP that declarer exposed (played) his cards rapidly one by one in a manner indicating that he wanting all remaining tricks.

Law 68A said:

[...]A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim[...]

so that action is a claim as good as anything.

If instead he just placed his remaining cards (still rapidly one by one) on the table without facing them to be seen then

Law 68B1 said:

[...]A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

so he has conceded all the remaining tricks.

Have your choice.

[blackshoe]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I disagree that what he has done constitutes a claim. Possibly he did not claim because of the language barrier, but playing rapidly in lieu of claiming is still not claiming.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-19, 04:03, said:

When declarers try this trick I simply refuse to turn my card over for a few seconds to restore the pace to normal. The pace at which you play should be decided by you, not by declarer. If declarer continues calling cards at this point then it should be clear it is a claim.

Refuse to turn my card over? Several tricks' worth of cards had not even left my hand.

Quote

In any case, your partner cannot revoke to a trick when you have not played to the previous trick given the stated facts (declarer has 2 cards, partner 3, you 5). Instead your partner's card is a penalty card (57A). I suspect that the discussion at the end is that declarer wanted the extra trick from the revoke due to ignorance of the revoke laws.

Maybe. But we didn't win any more tricks.

pran, on 2012-October-21, 02:24, said:

I understood OP that declarer exposed (played) his cards rapidly one by one in a manner indicating that he wanting all remaining tricks.

He was not claiming; he was putting them one by one in the played position while calling discards from dummy. In the process he did flash each card so that we could briefly see its face (but not if we were using that moment to try to select cards from our hands to play).

I think that is why my partner "revoked". As she could not catch a glimpse of declarer's cards and at the same time manage to play cards from her own hand, she probably heard one of the "diamond"s called from dummy and "followed" to it.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-18, 14:19, said:

I was playing in a tournament recently, and a particular hand had almost come to an end. My partner and I had taken all the tricks we were entitled to much earlier in the hand.

For the last 5 or 6 tricks, declarer put the cards almost directly face down from his hand while calling a steady stream of cards he was discarding from dummy "diamond diamond diamond" etc. My partner and I, and possibly dummy as well, could not keep up. Everyone was on a different trick the whole time. Yes, of course we should have called the director, but it all happened so fast there was no time.

At one point during this charade, it appeared that my partner had won a trick. I think she had three cards left in her hand, declarer had two, and I had about five. My partner's card should have fallen under one of the ones the declarer had "kind of" played, but she was as confused as I was about what trick we were on.

The opponents called the director about this revoke. When we discovered that my partner's "winning" card should ha been played a trick or two earlier, we said that that was fine and that we were happy to concede that and all remaining (who knows how many) tricks. The director did not accept this though, and the opponents apparently were not satisfied, as there ensued a very lengthy discussion between the director and the opponents (about what I cannot say, as it was in Polish).

Should we have been permitted to concede at that point? Are we permitted to concede a trick that we have "won" via a revoke?

Vampyr, on 2012-October-21, 18:45, said:

Refuse to turn my card over? Several tricks' worth of cards had not even left my hand.

He was not claiming; he was putting them one by one in the played position while calling discards from dummy. In the process he did flash each card so that we could briefly see its face (but not if we were using that moment to try to select cards from our hands to play).

I think that is why my partner "revoked". As she could not catch a glimpse of declarer's cards and at the same time manage to play cards from her own hand, she probably heard one of the "diamond"s called from dummy and "followed" to it.

If the play had proceeded at a normal pace, and your partner had revoked, then conceding the rest of the tricks at that point would establish the revoke (Law 63A3). If they had all the remaining tricks without the revoke it doesn't matter, of course — they'd get them anyway. Even if your side had won three or more tricks including and after the revoke trick, the TD would adjust the score under 64C. However, in cases where you might have legitimately won more tricks, conceding after a revoke could cost you tricks.

Frankly, I had been inclined to give declarer the benefit of the doubt, thinking that he was concerned about a possible language problem had he claimed. But their apparent insistence on getting a penalty applied for a revoke that declarer induced does not sit well with me. I would rule the remaining tricks to declarer, and then give him a procedural penalty.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 00:33, said:

... a revoke that declarer induced...

Defenders were equally culpable. They should have stopped play immediately when declarer started the silliness and insisted that he either claim or play out the hand at a normal pace.

[blackshoe]

I think "equally culpable" is an overbid. Some culpability perhaps, but the insistence of the declaring side on a revoke penalty outweighs that, IMO.

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on 2012-October-22, 00:42, said:

Defenders were equally culpable. They should have stopped play immediately when declarer started the silliness and insisted that he either claim or play out the hand at a normal pace.

I don't think so: that seems to me to be this growing 'Let's blame the non-offenders' fashion.

If declarer plays his cards before people have played to previous tricks and without showing them properly he has committed infractions. The opponents are not at fault.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 00:33, said:

But their apparent insistence on getting a penalty applied for a revoke that declarer induced does not sit well with me.

We were happy to concede any penalty that could be applied. We were not entitled to the revoke trick or any subsequent tricks.

Bbradley62, on 2012-October-22, 00:42, said:

Defenders were equally culpable. They should have stopped play immediately when declarer started the silliness and insisted that he either claim or play out the hand at a normal pace.

It happened too fast. I have strong doubts that declarer would have stopped playing during the time it took us to say "director please"; it would have been over by then. I am sure that our asking him to stop would have been pointless as well. People used to British or American bridge players overestimating the reasonableness of some players, and the attention they pay to the concerns of their opponents.

If I had simply folded my hand and placed it face-down on the table, declarer would still have continued to play in his bizarre fashion.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-21, 12:41, said:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I disagree that what he has done constitutes a claim. Possibly he did not claim because of the language barrier, but playing rapidly in lieu of claiming is still not claiming.

No, and if you claim you cannot say that an opponent has revoked after the claim!

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-22, 16:07, said:

We were happy to concede any penalty that could be applied. We were not entitled to the revoke trick or any subsequent tricks.

Yes, I understood that.