Failure to comply with declarer disallowing lead of a specific suit after a penalty card

In a recent match, west revoked with a spade but the revoke wasnt established. The spade was left as a penalty card. When east gained the lead, declarer disallowed a spade lead (the spade being returned to the west hand). After some thought, east led a spade. What law deals with this? At the table we made east’s spade a pen card. Law52b covers the failure to comply with playing pen card but I couldn’t find any law about a defender failing to comply with declarer disallowing a specific suit?

Comments

  • I think your ruling was correct, but I also agree that there doesn't seem to be anything that explicitly covers this case in the laws. I suppose I would rely on Law 49, since the play of this card is contrary to the application of Law 50D2a, which was in effect at that moment.

  • edited December 2017

    I think Law 61A applies:

    Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.

    The spade lead from East is a revoke. If the revoke is not corrected and play continues, the revoke would be estabiished and subject to a 1- or 2- trick penalty. (This is a situation where you can win the revoke trick with the revoke card without ruffing).

    But in this case the revoke was noticed and corrected. The spade from East becomes a penalty card.

  • @BarkerBridgeTD said:
    I think Law 61A applies:

    Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.

    The spade lead from East is a revoke. If the revoke is not corrected and play continues, the revoke would be estabiished and subject to a 1- or 2- trick penalty. (This is a situation where you can win the revoke trick with the revoke card without ruffing).

    But in this case the revoke was noticed and corrected. The spade from East becomes a penalty card.

    Well done! I should have got that, because this is one of the rare ways in which a rectification for a revoke in a NT contract can be two tricks.

  • Impressive lateral thinking and well worth remembering.

  • So if declarer follows suit to the illegally lead Spade can West draw attention to East's (possible) revoke?
    L61B3 covers defender's right to inquire about a revoke, but only appears to apply after a player has failed to follow suit.

  • East has revoked by definition so L61B3 applies.

  • And this revoke is established when EW play at the next trick? And then declarer can call TD for trick adjustment?

  • OK, so savvy declarers can gain extra tricks from this, if they are lucky.

    Perhaps east has spades stuck in his mind but because the penalty card is now removed from play, he forgot that it was a spade that he was barred from playing and plays the K spades. South as declarer is sat with AQx spades so thinks to let it go and win a trick that they couldn't normally.

    However, he then realises that this is a revoke and as such he can play a small spade allowing the defender to win the trick in the knowledge that he will win it back later with a correction, due the defender winning the revoke trick. Thus winning 3 tricks from a holding that only gives 1.

    Just another thought, couldn't the declarer, by accepting the lead and playing or calling for dummy to play a card, ipso facto be determined to have had a change of mind of the barring of that suit? as an aside, would it be considered bad sportsmanship to quickly call for a card from dummy before the other defender can ask about the possibility of a revoke. Would calling for any card to be played count as establishing the revoke (even if that card does not exist in dummy)?

    Not that I would expect any behaviour like this at the clubs I play/direct at :)

  • In some cases, the player with lead restriction cannot comply (Law 59).
    In this case, declarer may play on, assuming that East has only spades.

  • Well the question I asked was can West draw attention to East's revoke.
    This received the rather Delphic response that L61B3 is the applicable Law.
    So let us look what L61B actually says. Paraphrasing it says that IF East fails to follow to a suit that has been led then West can ask East if he has any cards in the suit that has been led.

    In this case the stipulation that East fails to follow has not been met and in any case the right to ask is restricted to asking whether East has any Spades since that is the suit that has just been led.

    So it seems clear (at least to me) that L61B3 DOES NOT grant the right to draw attention.

    HOWEVER
    If you look for guidance in the White Book then you read the advice "Defenders may ask each other whether they may have revoked". This appears without any qualification so now it seems that L61B3 DOES give West the right to draw attention.

    I remain confused on this matter.

  • I am afraid there is little consideration of this situation in the laws and guidance. The TD should remain at the table until the penalty card has been played and the lead restrictions resolved. So the TD should ask East if they have no non-spades.

  • edited December 2017

    @DaveB said:
    Well the question I asked was can West draw attention to East's revoke.
    This received the rather Delphic response that L61B3 is the applicable Law.
    So let us look what L61B actually says. Paraphrasing it says that IF East fails to follow to a suit that has been led then West can ask East if he has any cards in the suit that has been led.

    If we don't paraphrase but read the words of the Law to which you were referred, it says:

    "61B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke
    3. Defenders may ask declarer and one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information)."

    So 61B3 does give a clear answer to your question. Indeed the wording might have been carefully chosen to include precisely this circumstance.

  • Sorry this does NOT give a clear answer to me.
    L61B3 does not specify what can be asked nor the circumstances in which it can be asked.
    To get that information one refers to L61B1 - [Declarer may ask a defender] - who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led

  • OK, in the situation of the original post, where a defender leads a suit that they have been barred from leading, their partner is entitled to enquire as the possibility of a revoke. The law is clear (pasted in by Gordon above, 61B, 3), the words that can be used are not specified only that UI might be created by asking...
    However, if you use neutral wording, then there should be no issues, so possibilities are (IMHO):
    Only Spades partner?
    No other suits partner?
    Is that a revoke partner?
    Is that the barred suit partner?

    What wouldn't be good is a shock factor that could indicate that you have a lot of spades and so surprised that your partner only has spades left (so the declarer must be out for example). So you shouldn't say in a surprised voice, 'wow, are you sure you only have spades partner?'

  • @DaveB said:
    Sorry this does NOT give a clear answer to me.
    L61B3 does not specify what can be asked nor the circumstances in which it can be asked.
    To get that information one refers to L61B1 - [Declarer may ask a defender] - who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led

    Why would you look at the bit of the law that tells you what happens if declarer asks a defender, when what you want to know is if a defender asks a defender?

    61B3 states clearly that defenders can ask one another. Since it doesn't limit the circumstances in which that applies (although it does warn of the potential for UI) then it applies in all circumstances when you wish to inquire about a possible revoke.

  • If I write A asks B "is it raining where you are?" B asks C. C asks D. Then it is totally clear that the question B and C ask is the same question as A asks.

    As I understand it, the headings to the laws do not restrict the application of the law.
    So if L61B3 is not restricted by L61B1, nor the heading, that would make a question such as "Do you remember I played the 8 spades at trick 2 followed by the 7 spades at trick 3?" a legal question. (The knowledge of the order you played your cards being authorised)

  • @DaveB said:

    As I understand it, the headings to the laws do not restrict the application of the law.

    I can't see any statement to that effect in the 2017 Laws, though it was in earlier editions.

  • I can't see any statement to that effect in the 2017 Laws, though it was in earlier editions.

    That may well be so, but the application of Law 61 is unchanged from the 2007 version

  • @DaveB said:
    >

    That may well be so, but the application of Law 61 is unchanged from the 2007 version

    I wasn't answering as to the position under earlier laws.

    I've stated clearly what I believe the position to be and given reasons for it. Now I'll leave you to have whatever last word you want.

  • @DaveB said:
    Sorry this does NOT give a clear answer to me.
    L61B3 does not specify what can be asked nor the circumstances in which it can be asked.
    To get that information one refers to L61B1 - [Declarer may ask a defender] - who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led

    L61B3 says they can ask. It does not refer to L61B1 which is a different situation any more than it refers to (say) L70B3. As with many laws over the years perhaps it could have been written better to take specific account of a very rare situation which the lawmakers may not have thought of. It wasn’t so live with it. They can ask. Next.

Sign In or Register to comment.