[jeffford76]

Last board of the round. An East/West player revokes on a trick won by North/South after which N/S claims all but one of the rest and E/W agrees. All players return their hands to the board.

Before anyone moves, N/S realizes that E/W revoked and calls the director. Had play continued with a corrected revoke and a penalty card, N/S would have still won all but one of the remaining tricks.

What now?

Would it matter if the time clock had expired for the round, but the players hadn't moved? What if the time clock had expired and the director had called the round?

[PrecisionL]

64B5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended. (No Automatic Trick Adjustment)

[weejonnie]

PrecisionL, on 2018-November-29, 11:27, said:

64B5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended. (No Automatic Trick Adjustment)

Law 8
B. End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following
round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that
table until there has been a progression of players.

So the question is: has the Director given the signal? if he has then there is no automatic trick penalty (but 64C still applies). if he hasn't then there will be a 0,1 or 2 trick penalty - and 64C.

(It is slightly different for the last round)

[axman]

jeffford76, on 2018-November-29, 11:17, said:

Last board of the round. An East/West player revokes on a trick won by North/South after which N/S claims all but one of the rest and E/W agrees. All players return their hands to the board.

Before anyone moves, N/S realizes that E/W revoked and calls the director. Had play continued with a corrected revoke and a penalty card, N/S would have still won all but one of the remaining tricks.

What now?

Would it matter if the time clock had expired for the round, but the players hadn't moved? What if the time clock had expired and the director had called the round?

It seems to me that the cards having been mixed, there is some question as to the accuracy of an assertion of a revoke.

[blackshoe]

If the final outcome is the same with or without the revoke, there is no justification for score adjustment, and no point to going back and imposing the revoke law.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 13:48, said:

If the final outcome is the same with or without the revoke, there is no justification for score adjustment, and no point to going back and imposing the revoke law.

The revoke prescribes a specific penalty, even if the revoke didn't actually cause damage. I know you know this, so maybe you mean something else by "no justification"?

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2018-November-29, 11:17, said:

Last board of the round. An East/West player revokes on a trick won by North/South after which N/S claims all but one of the rest and E/W agrees. All players return their hands to the board.

Before anyone moves, N/S realizes that E/W revoked and calls the director. Had play continued with a corrected revoke and a penalty card, N/S would have still won all but one of the remaining tricks.

What now?

Would it matter if the time clock had expired for the round, but the players hadn't moved? What if the time clock had expired and the director had called the round?

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 13:48, said:

If the final outcome is the same with or without the revoke, there is no justification for score adjustment, and no point to going back and imposing the revoke law.

barmar, on 2018-November-29, 13:53, said:

The revoke prescribes a specific penalty, even if the revoke didn't actually cause damage. I know you know this, so maybe you mean something else by "no justification"?

There are two questions in the OP. One relates to the timing, in particular whether it makes a difference if the round has or has not ended. The other relates to the ruling on the revoke. I suppose you could add a third question: was there a revoke?

What I said was that there is no justification for a score adjustment. There are two elements to that: an infraction (the revoke) and damage. I read the OP as saying the revoke caused no damage. So no score adjustment. But maybe I wrote too quickly. Let's see.

First, there was a claim on the last board of a round. Everyone agreed to the claim, and returned their hands to the board. Is the round over? No.

Quote

Law 8B. End of Round
1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

The round ends when the Director gives the signal. I would say that "move for the next round" might or might not be such a signal. Depends on whether the Director routinely announces "begin the next round" or (as is more likely IME) simply assumes that people will get on with it as soon as they've moved. When there is a clock, it seems to me that the clock's signals are signals from the Director, so that when the clock says "move for the next round" that might or might not signal the end of the current round. But (again IME) clock programs do that and then give a signal for the start of the next round. So that is the end of the current round.

In the instant case, the round has not ended whether the director has signaled the start of the next round or not. This is because the contestant hasn't moved yet. So Law 64B5 doesn't apply. So where are we?

Declaring side has claimed that a defender revoked. Did the defense agree? If not, the Director must determine whether in his opinion his ruling should be based on there having been a revoke or having not been a revoke (see Laws 84, 85, and 65B).

If the defense agreed there was a revoke, or the Director determines on the preponderance of the evidence that there was a revoke, then (presuming the revoke was not on trick twelve, which seems likely from the OP) Law 63A4 applies. Declarer claimed, so defenders' agreement with the claim establishes the revoke. Declarer won the revoke trick, and then claimed all but one of the the rest. So Law 64A2 applies, and one trick should be transferred to the declaring side.

OP stated "Had play continued with a corrected revoke and a penalty card, N/S would have still won all but one of the remaining tricks." This is a red herring as far as the initial revoke ruling is concerned, because it didn't happen. It might affect a score adjustment under Law 64C. In this case it doesn't because the non-offending side was not "insufficiently compensated for the damage caused."

If the defense do not agree that there was a revoke, and the director determines on the preponderance of the evidence that there was not, then the already agreed result stands. No infraction, no rectification.

tl;dr: If the director determines there was not a revoke, the agreed result stands. If the director determines that there was a revoke, after the claim one trick is transferred from the defending side to the declaring side. Had the round ended (i.e., had EW moved to the next table) the agreed result would stand, but that didn't happen.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-29, 14:45, said:

The round ends when the Director gives the signal. I would say that "move for the next round" might or might not be such a signal. Depends on whether the Director routinely announces "begin the next round" or (as is more likely IME) simply assumes that people will get on with it as soon as they've moved. When there is a clock, it seems to me that the clock's signals are signals from the Director, so that when the clock says "move for the next round" that might or might not signal the end of the current round.

Law 8B would seem to impose a responsibility on the RA and/or club to define such a signal. In our club the round ends when the Director rings the bell - the national regulations don't say anything specific, but I doubt it could be contested.

[jeffford76]

I should have been clear that all agreed the revoke happened.

If ruling that the round has not ended and using Law 63A4 can’t the revoking side change their mind and object to the claim?

[VixTD]

The definition of the end of the play period is "when the cards are removed from the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted)" and I would rule that this board has not been quitted, as the score has not been agreed and entered.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2018-November-29, 19:30, said:

I should have been clear that all agreed the revoke happened.

If ruling that the round has not ended and using Law 63A4 can’t the revoking side change their mind and object to the claim?

That would not, I think, change the fact that when they originally agreed to the claim, the revoke became established.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-30, 16:44, said:

That would not, I think, change the fact that when they originally agreed to the claim, the revoke became established.

True - because of Law 63A1

1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or
illegal, establishes the revoke).

I think that the query is because of law 63A4

4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the
offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before
making a call on a subsequent board.

Which means that if you revoke and the opponents claim BEFORE you play to the next trick then if you object it is argued you have been denied the chance of correcting the revoke before it becomes established.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-30, 16:44, said:

That would not, I think, change the fact that when they originally agreed to the claim, the revoke became established.

Remember that an agreement to a claim is also a concession of the tricks claimed - see Law 68B1!

I have a strong feeling that Blackshoe is thinking of:

Law 63A3 said:

3. when a member of the offending side makes a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

rather than:

weejonnie, on 2018-November-30, 18:14, said:

True - because of Law 63A1

1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or
illegal, establishes the revoke).

I think that the query is because of law 63A4

4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the
offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before
making a call on a subsequent board.

Which means that if you revoke and the opponents claim BEFORE you play to the next trick then if you object it is argued you have been denied the chance of correcting the revoke before it becomes established.

[blackshoe]

What I was thinking is that I don't see how the law should allow the alleged offending side (in this case EW, who are alleged to have revoked) to change their mind about acceptance of a claim if the NOS later calls attention to the alleged revoke. Seems like giving them a free double shot.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-December-01, 13:47, said:

What I was thinking is that I don't see how the law should allow the alleged offending side (in this case EW, who are alleged to have revoked) to change their mind about acceptance of a claim if the NOS later calls attention to the alleged revoke. Seems like giving them a free double shot.

I agree, and in my opinion the relevant laws here are:

Law 64C said:

1. When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

and

Law 69B said:

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:
1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

and these two laws must be tried independently of each other.

[barmar]

When a revoke is established, it's irrelevant what would have happened had the revoke been discovered earlier and become a penalty card. We just apply the rule for trick transfer. And the clause about adjusting further refers to what would have happened if the revoke had never occurred in the first place, not if it were discovered before becoming established.

The revoke became established when the claim was agreed to, but no one realized that the revoke had occurred at the time. They only realized it as they were preparing to move for the next round. The question on the floor is whether the TD can perform the standard trick transfer in this case.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-December-02, 05:42, said:

When a revoke is established, it's irrelevant what would have happened had the revoke been discovered earlier and become a penalty card. We just apply the rule for trick transfer. And the clause about adjusting further refers to what would have happened if the revoke had never occurred in the first place, not if it were discovered before becoming established.

The revoke became established when the claim was agreed to, but no one realized that the revoke had occurred at the time. They only realized it as they were preparing to move for the next round. The question on the floor is whether the TD can perform the standard trick transfer in this case.

"they were preparing to move for the next round" so some kind of signal for the start of the following round must have been given

Law 8B End of Round said:

1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round;....

so the round had ended

Law 64B No Automatic Trick Adjustment said:

There is no automatic trick adjustment following an established revoke .... if:
.....
5. attention was first drawn to the revoke after the round has ended.
.....

so it was too late for TD to perform the standard trick transfer in this case.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-December-02, 06:24, said:

"they were preparing to move for the next round" so some kind of signal for the start of the following round must have been given


so the round had ended


so it was too late for TD to perform the standard trick transfer in this case.

Assumption is not fact. They had not moved, so there had been no "progression of players" so the round ain't over.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2018-December-02, 15:28, said:

Assumption is not fact. They had not moved, so there had been no "progression of players" so the round ain't over.

"Progression of players" only applies

1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following
round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that
table until there has been a progression of players.

It seems that 'play' is not the same as 'play period'.

"play:... 3. The period during which the cards are played. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board.

"play period: ... The play period itself ends when the
cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted)."

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2018-December-02, 15:56, said:

"Progression of players" only applies

1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following
round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that
table until there has been a progression of players.

It seems that 'play' is not the same as 'play period'.

"play:... 3. The period during which the cards are played. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board.

"play period: ... The play period itself ends when the
cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted)."

Perhaps not, but does "completed play" mean "reached the end of the play period" or does it mean something else? If so, what, exactly, and why?