[blml] Correction of a revoke

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> > > From: Konrad Ciborowski 
> > > 
> > > [snip] 
> > > 
> > >> Am I supposed to ask my opponents
> > >> to show me their hands every single time I claim?
> > >> If they say "what for?" am I supposed to call the
> > >> TD?
> > >> 
> > >> It hardly seems practical. And it would annoy 
> > >> the hell out of everybody if I started doing it.
> > > 
> > > Peter:
> > > What about Law 66D ??
> > > 
> > > "After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards 
> > > may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or 
> > > of the number of tricks won or lost; [...]"
> > > 
> > +=+ Er, well, Peter, what about it? If a revoke is found 
> > at that stage the Director's action conforms to the law 
> > operative at the stage at which the revoke is found. 
> >                                         ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 
> Peter:
> Well, I only wanted to answer Konrad's question whether he is
> allowed to ask his opponents to show their cards.


I know that you _are_ entitled to ask your opponents to show 
you their cards. But requiring this is completely impractical,
it slows down the game and also the general perception is
that this is impolite. 

- What did you have in clubs, sir?
- Three to the jack.
- Can I see it?
- Excuse me?
- Can I see your hand?
- I had 4=4=2=3, a 10 count.
- Yes, but can I see it?
- You don't believe me or what?
- It has nothing to do with me trusting to you, can
  I see your hand, please? I just want to make sure
  you didn't revoke.
- What? Of course I didn't.
- Can I see your hand then?
- DIRECTOR!!!!

This is more or less how it always ends.
Which is why almost nobody does that.

A few years ago when my team was in the
Third Division we once lost about 30 IMPs on a revoke
committed by an opponent that went undetected.
At our table the opponents were in 6C = while
our teammates went to 7C. The opening lead won, trumps,
three spades cashed and a heart finesse. 
The king was offside so my teammate claimed one down.

After the match was over my teammate saw
the hand records and discovered that
on one of the spades his LHO had revoked
by pitching a diamond even though he still had
a spade. Immediately after the match was over 
and the play was reconstructed everybody
agreed to this including the TD.
Declarer couldn't have known that a revoke had occurred
as he held Axx - KQx in spades as it was perfectly
possible for spades to be 5-2 and because
declarer claimed at trick 7 he never had a chance to
discover that his LHO did have a missing spade.

So the revoke was discovered after the match was
over but since 7C was unmakeable as the cards lay there
was no grounds for score adjustment under 64C and too
late to apply the automatic penalty of 1 trick.

So the bottom line is that an opponent got away
with a revoke because of L64B4.

Instead of insisting on giving players hand record
after single every deal in a team match or on requiring
your opponent to show you his hand every time you
claim it would be much more practical to allow
a revoke be punished before the correction period
expires.

This is the same problem as with different explanations
when screens are used. Very often you discover that
the explanations were different after the match is
over when you talk to your partner in the post-mortem.
But in this case you don't lose anything by
calling the TD after the match has ended (within
the correction period) so why not allow the
same for revokes for cases when there are
no records available immediately?



-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bedac w toalecie korzystala z ...

>>>   http://link.interia.pl/f1cbc