Claim and revoke
I was passed the following for comment. Two other directors disagreed with the ruling - comments please.
i also realise that the format of the hand hasn't travelled well in copying it across but the most important aspects of the hand can be seen by scrolling down to where it says "Leaving the last 4 cards:" and reading from there. Off the subject but what should I have done to get the hand displayed correctly?
Monday 25th September board 10:
Dlr: East Vul: All
10 8 2 6 4 Q 10 8 9 6 5 4 3
Optimum EW 4S; -620
A Q J 9 5 A 9 A J 7 3 Q 7
W e s t North E a s t 10 South
K 7 4 K Q 7 3 5 4 2 J 10 8
2 18 9 11
6 3 J 10 8 5 2 K 9 6 A K 2
pade N N - - - - - S - - - - - E 1 2 1 4 3 W 1 2 1 4 3
Bidding:
East: Pass
South: 1H
West: Double
North: Pass
East: 1S
South: Pass
West: 4S
South led a small Heart (5) Won on table with the A. Trumps were drawn A,Q, and ending in hand with the K. South discarded a heart (2).
8 of clubs led from hand to the table; South rose with the King, dummy played the 7. South led another Heart, won in hand with the King.
Ten of clubs led from hand, South rose with the A, and led another Heart, dummy discarded a diamond, North discarded a club, won in hand with the Queen.
Declarer cashed the Jack of clubs discarding a diamond from dummy.
Leaving the last 4 cards:
Dummy Spades: J,9
Diamonds: A,J
Declarer: Hearts: 7
Diamonds: 5,4,2
South: Hearts: J
Diamonds; K,9,6
North: Diamonds: Q,T,8
Clubs: 9
Declarer led the 7 of Hearts, South played the 6 of diamonds, Dummy played the J of diamonds, and North played the 9 of clubs.
The cards were turned over and I claimed the rest of the tricks, saying Table is good.
South faced his cards, and North said, you have a Heart.
The Director was called, and ruled that as the opposition had not played to the next trick the revoke was not established, so the previous round should be unpicked, and South should play his Heart forcing declarer to ruff in Dummy, and give up a loosing Diamond.
Declarer was penalised by a trick due to the opposition revoking!
Comments
I can understand why declarer would feel that he lost a trick but note that a claim by declarer does not establish a revoke by a defender. The only point of doubt in my mind is that it was the revoker's partner who spotted the revoke and only after cards had been faced.
Putting that doubt aside, there has been an irregularity and that should be corrected. The irregularity occurred prior to the claim and it is still current, since defenders have not taken any action after the irregularity, so it should be dealt with before the claim. The HJ should be played to the previous trick, correcting the revoke, and the D6 becomes a major penalty card. Declarer loses a trick that he was bound to lose, but only because offender's partner also has a protected top honour in diamonds. Is it reasonable for him not to play it, given that he now has UI from seeing that his partner holds the King? Is playing small under the DJ a logical alternative? I don't think so, given the remaining cards in dummy.
One might suggest that declarer should have been aware of the outstanding HJ and could have simply played a diamond up to the ace and this would either prompt a realisation from the offender that he had revoked or it would prompt him to play to the current trick, which would establish the revoke.
As to the point of doubt that the revoke came to light after the revoker's partner saw all the cards, play is merely suspended while a claim is being assessed. Any exposed cards do not become penalty cards but are UI to defenders. The revoke has come to light and must be corrected.
I agree with the director's ruling.
Declarer was not penalized, the opponents got lucky and did not lose the diamond trick they were always going to make.
It would be more interesting if South had DKQ6. When adjudicating on the claim/revoke, the revoke is corrected and D6 is a major penalty card. So declarer can ruff HJ in dummy and cash DJ, South following with D6, making the rest.
What about Law 63A3:
A revoke becomes established... "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."
South has faced their hand which must surely be a concession, and hence the revoke is established.
Even if you view it that way, see 68B2.
A cross reference to 63A3 in Law 68 would have been helpful. In the absence of this in Law 68 , Law 63A3 is a stand-alone and law which should be taken into account in so far as the issue related to the established revoke, in circumstances where a claim/concession is made immediately after the revoke and determined as such.
Whilst I accept it does not strictly say so (at least that I can find), it seems evident that a claim/concession is only intended to apply to tricks either uncompleted or as yet unplayed.
In any case, 68B2 only applies if a defender immediately objects to his partner's concession. I submit that since North only "objects" after he has seen his partners hand, that is not immediate.
I do however take rkcb1430's point about the difference between conceding the remaining tricks as a stand alone act, and agreeing to declarer's claim.
Ethically my heart is with the director - it may be unfortunate that declarer has a lower score than would probably have been if they had not claimed, but that's just the way the game is. In a similar way, by making a claim for some but not all of the remaining tricks, you are removing the possibility that one of the defenders may revoke.
I do love a good root around the laws :)
Jeremy, if you consider that facing his cards is an act of concession then partner didn't need to contest it before then. As he sees the errant HJ, he points out that there has been a revoke. Some might consider this sufficient to nullify any putative concession.
As Robin and I both point out above, declarer didn't lose anything but a diamond trick he was going to lose, anyway. Had he played to the next trick, rather than claiming, he might have avoided losing the diamond trick, we'll never know, since it depends on whether the defender would have realised that he'd just revoked.
Accepting a claim is not a concession (see White Book 8.69.1 where I tried to spell out the distinction). So Law 63A3 is not the appropriate law. Law 63A4 is relevant, but it was rewritten in 2017 and in this case the defence are in time to correct the revoke. The first WBFLC minute in WB 8.63.1 ends with "and then determine the claim as equitably as possible adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker" - this is a significant interpretation.
(The second WBFLC minute in WB 8.63.1 appears incompatible with the rewording of Law 63A4 - I think this minute can be ignored.)
Tag, Robin: Got it - thanks.
If we "adjudicate any margin of doubt against the revoker" then we should give the last two tricks to declarer or have I got it wrong.
Margin of doubt against revoker doesn't mean that we force them to duck a trick they could win if normal play is to win it.
The revoke was trick 10, declarer claimed at trick 11, making the last four tricks.
When the revoke is corrected, declarer will change his card at trick 10 to ruffing in dummy. This leaves dummy with DJ as a loser (DQ is still North's hand). There is no normal line to make the last three tricks (North can see DAJ in dummy). There is no "margin of doubt" for declarer to benefit from and they make only three of the last four tricks.
Finally got it - thanks everyone for your replies. Alan.
Having been fascinated by this discussion but thinking it unlikely to be anything I would come across, it happened at a club session the other day. Slightly different circumstances though: declarer claimed because he thought there were no more hearts out after no one followed suit on his heart lead, but in fact defender had revoked.
Thanks to this forum I was able to deal with it without missing a beat.
:)