Dummy's rights

Dummy points out part of the way through the play that a defender has revoked (which was already established).
Dummy has not done anything they aren't allowed to do under 43 A 2.

If declarer had pointed out the revoke, it would be a one trick penalty.
Equity (in the Law 64C sense) would be the table result .

How do you rule?

I note that if dummy had waited until the end of play, but then said something before the start of the next board, there would be a one trick penalty.

My immediate reaction is that I would apply the revoke rules, but then give dummy a PP, quoting laws 43B1 and 81C3.

Side note: could the revoking side claim that no-one would have noticed, and then there should only be an equity adjustment under 72C?

The reason I ask is that an EBU director has said something totally different in print. Now I am confused.

Comments

  • @SteveFoster said:
    Law 43B3 would seem to apply. Everything else follows from that.

    43B3 only applies to violations of 43A2. Dummy's violation is of 43A1b.

    The revoke has been established and the result should be adjusted accordingly.

    There is no lessening of the adjustment just because Dummy mentioned it. Dummy is however liable to a PP.

    Interestingly table 2.8.2 of the White Book does not list a suggested level of penalty for this infraction. Nor as far as I can tell is it noted anywhere else. I would suggest a Warning for a first offence, standard PP for repeat offences.

    @Frances said:
    Side note: could the revoking side claim that no-one would have noticed, and then there should only be an equity adjustment under 72C?

    No - I do not believe so. As you mention, the player who is dummy can always mention it after the end of play. (For the pedants, the player is no longer dummy once play stops, and so is free to mention any irregularity.)

    The reason I ask is that an EBU director has said something totally different in print. Now I am confused.

    Is this real print or online print? If the latter can you provide a link? It may be that there is some subtle difference in the cases.

  • I've had long discussions about these sorts of cases in the past and my view is the same of yours: apply the law to the original infraction and then fine dummy's side the standard amount.

    There used to be a view that you should fine by an amount equal to the benefit gained by the rectification, but I don't think this was supported by the laws.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    There used to be a view that you should fine by an amount equal to the benefit gained by the rectification, but I don't think this was supported by the laws.

    This is what was taught on county courses in 1990s - to achieve something similar to what is now Law 12C1 (e) - and required by the White Book for some particular adjustments. Under the current laws, we are content that split adjustments should only be given where the laws require, and that the amount of procedural penalties should related to seriously of the offence.

  • I think Law 72C would apply if dummy drew attention to the revoke and declarer adopted a better line of play - because declarer was better informed as to the lie of the cards, or how many tricks they can now make.

  • I think I've seen the article Frances refers to, and it made me wonder too.

    Wouldn't this be a good thing to add to the White Book, perhaps under 8.42, since it causes confusion?

  • I'll put on the list for 2020.

Sign In or Register to comment.