[blml] Another Law that players need to know

[David Grabiner]

While Harald and several other people have made the point that the Director should have told us about the revoke penalty when I called her, it is still necessary for players to know about the penalty, because many revokes are not confirmed until after the hand.  On the hand in question, the Director had to be called as soon as the revoke became established, because South tried to lead out of turn to the next trick.  But on many other hands, nobody calls the director about a suspected revoke in mid-deal.

It is also important for players to be able to claim that a revoke actually cost three tricks; the TD should always mention this possibility, but rarely does, and it almost never matters.

Another reason for players to know this rule is to know what the rule *doesn't* say.  I have twice had opponents revoke when ruffing with the high trump, and they weren't happy to lose a trick that they could not have lost; one even said that he thought there was an exception.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harald Skjæran 
  To: Bridge Laws Discussion List 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [blml] Another Law that players need to know





  On 12/09/06, David Grabiner <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: 
    We have had previous discussions on BLML about which Laws players actually
    need to know.  They need to know the basic rules of the game, the 
    Proprieties, and fundamental principles such as what to do about UI and that
    the Director should be called when anything goes wrong.  They don't need to
    know the penalty for an opening bid out of turn or a conventional 
    insufficient bid, since the Director will make sure that the proper penalty
    is enforced.

    However, I encountered a new situation in which the player does need to know
    the penalty: the revoke, because the penalty is imposed only later. 

    I was West, dummy (North) led a diamond, East (who was out) played a hearts,
    and South revoked by playing a heart.  I won the trick, and South
    established the revoke by leading (out of turn) to the next trick, thinking 
    he had won the trick.  We called the (playing) Director, who told us to play
    on, leave the cards out, and the penalty would be imposed at the end.  She
    didn't mention the penalty at that time.

    I cashed several tricks, and then I was left with a low heart and a low 
    diamond.  North had a high heart and a high spade, and South had a high
    diamond and a high club.  If I led a heart, North would get two tricks, and
    the revoke penalty would be one trick.  If I led a diamond, South would win 
    the trick with a card he could have played on the revoke trick, and the
    revoke penalty would be two tricks.  By knowing the Laws, I gained an extra
    trick.

  When I'm called as a TD in cases like this, I always inform the players of how a revoke will be penalized after play, including the difference between a one and two trick penalty, depending on whether the revoker later win or doesn't win a trick with a card in the suit led to the revoke trick. 

  Not doing so would be an error on my part.
  The consequence being that a later law 82C ruling might apply, leading to a split score.

  Regards,
  Harald


    _______________________________________________
    blml mailing list
    blml at amsterdamned.org
    http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml




  -- 
  Kind regards,
  Harald Skjæran 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  blml mailing list
  blml at amsterdamned.org
  http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060912/edb64933/attachment-0001.htm