[BunnyGo]

Hello.

I'm wondering what the laws are in the following general situation:

South is declaring a hand, and at some point West revokes. The revoke is unknown to South who makes a complete and correct claim based on the count of the hand had West actually been void in the suit. As the cards actually lie, South's claim is completely incorrect. What is the ruling?

I have no specific hand in mind, but if details matter, please let me know and I'll construct something.

[blackshoe]

Insufficient information. When did the revoke occur? Did revoker or his partner play to a subsequent trick after the revoke but before the claim? Did the revoking side accept or contest the claim?

[VixTD]

 BunnyGo, on 2019-April-06, 17:22, said:

Hello.

I'm wondering what the laws are in the following general situation:

South is declaring a hand, and at some point West revokes. The revoke is unknown to South who makes a complete and correct claim based on the count of the hand had West actually been void in the suit. As the cards actually lie, South's claim is completely incorrect. What is the ruling?

I have no specific hand in mind, but if details matter, please let me know and I'll construct something.

If it's an established revoke, the TD should apply the automatic trick adjustment of law 64A, followed by the score adjustment of law 64C if the non-offending side are not thereby sufficiently compensated for the effects of the revoke. This may well involve judging how the play is likely to have gone if the hand had been played out, if the revoke prompted the non-offending side to claim. Doubtful points are resolved against the revoking side, of course, and the score may be weighted.

If the revoke had not been established I imagine it should be corrected and an adjusted score awarded on the basis of how the play would likely proceed (including the consequences of any penalty cards), again resolving doubtful points against the revoker and weighting the outcomes as appropriate.

[Tramticket]

I agree with VixTD if the revoke is established, 64C is to be used if the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated.

 VixTD, on 2019-April-08, 06:35, said:

If the revoke had not been established I imagine it should be corrected and an adjusted score awarded on the basis of how the play would likely proceed (including the consequences of any penalty cards), again resolving doubtful points against the revoker and weighting the outcomes as appropriate.

Without checking, I had assumed that a claim would establish a revoke, but it is clear from 63.A.3 that only a claim by the offending side establishes a revoke. Whilst the non-offending side may withdraw cards played after the revoke (62.C.1), I don't think there is any provision for the claim to be cancelled. We probably need to adjust as VixTD suggests using the provisions of 12.A.1.

[pran]

 Tramticket, on 2019-April-08, 07:27, said:

I agree with VixTD if the revoke is established, 64C is to be used if the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated.


Without checking, I had assumed that a claim would establish a revoke, but it is clear from 63.A.3 that only a claim by the offending side establishes a revoke. Whilst the non-offending side may withdraw cards played after the revoke (62.C.1), I don't think there is any provision for the claim to be cancelled. We probably need to adjust as VixTD suggests using the provisions of 12.A.1.

A revoke is established when a member of the offending side makes a claim or concession of tricks (including conceding to opponents' claim).

Law 70 E1 said:

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal21 line of play.

I believe the fact that the opponent failed to follow the suit before the claim was made, and thus revoked on that trick, is sufficient for the claimer to change his claim statement or even cancel his claim.

[RMB1]

 pran, on 2019-April-08, 07:44, said:

I believe the fact that the opponent failed to follow the suit before the claim was made, and thus revoked on that trick, is sufficient for the claimer to change his claim statement or even cancel his claim.

This is the relevant WBFLC minute, it is from before the 2007 laws and the substance of this minute has not been included in later law books.

WBFLC minutes 2001-12#3 said:

If a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no {agreement}, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker.

[weejonnie]

 RMB1, on 2019-April-08, 08:26, said:

This is the relevant WBFLC minute, it is from before the 2007 laws and the substance of this minute has not been included in later law books.

I think this may only apply if the defender hasn't played to the next trick. The laws quite clearly states

"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)."

[RMB1]

 weejonnie, on 2019-April-08, 09:02, said:

I think this may only apply if the defender hasn't played to the next trick.

I think the words at the start of the minute mean: if a defender revokes and then declarer immediately claims (before anyone has played to the next trick) ...