Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF
bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: Dummy draws attention to revoke

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message.
Please specify your country in your query where indicated.
Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations.

Welcome, Register :: Log in 

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

[Helen]

Reply
Dummy draws attention to revoke ( 07:08:23 FriAug 23 2002 )

Dummy, a 90+ little old lady, innocently asks a defender why he bid spades after he failed to follow suit to the initial lead. Should the revoke be corrected but still subject to penalties under the law as attention has been drawn illegally? Had the opponent not revoked, he would have won the trick and sent a spade back for his partner to ruff.

  
Ed

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply
Re: Dummy draws attention to revoke ( 06:45:47 SatAug 24 2002 )

Interesting question. Let me see....

I gather that the defender who revoked didn't play a trump. I wonder why? It doesn't matter to the ruling, though.

Was the revoke established? (If either defender played to the next trick before dummy asked, then it was.)

Assuming it wasn't established, it must be corrected. Here's where it gets interesting. Law 63B says

Quote:

When there has been a violation of Law†61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law†64 apply as if the revoke had been established.


61B speaks to who's allowed to ask whom about possible revokes. Since dummy isn't allowed to ask defenders, 61B has been violated. That law doesn't seem to care which side the asker belongs to. So now the penalties of Law 64 come into effect, even though the revoke wasn't established.

If the revoke was established, then it can't be corrected, and the penalty provisions of Law 64 should be applied. So it looks like this revoke rates a penalty whether it was established or not.

We haven't dealt with dummy's infraction, though. It is subject to a procedural penalty under law 90. In this case, I think I'd be inclined to just make it a warning.

  
bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply
Re: Dummy draws attention to revoke ( 21:11:50 SatAug 24 2002 )

There is no doubt that Ed has read the Law right, but :embarrassed:

It cannot be right that dummy can get penalties from the defenders by doing somethign illegal! If [in a different scenario] dummy realised from the look on the defender's face that he had realised and was about to correct it then he shoudl immediately point it out because the penalty would be worthwhile, even if he gets penalised.

Wjhile I do not disagree with Ed, I shall pass the question on to BLML to see if they have any intelligent comments, or to see if they notice something Ed and I have missed.



---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm
 
 
Joost Boswijk

7 posts
bridgetalk member

Reply
Re: Dummy draws attention to revoke ( 07:59:30 MonAug 26 2002 )

Law 43B3:
Quote:

If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first to draw attention to a defenderís irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. If the defenders benefit directly through their irregularity, the director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity.

It seems to me that 'no penalty shall be imposed' would lead to
- no penalty card if the revoke hasn't been established and
- no penalty tricks if established.
But the laws are not particulary clear on this, so I'm quite curious what the result of the BLML posting will be.

Regards,

Joost

  
bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply
Re: Dummy draws attention to revoke ( 18:51:44 MonAug 26 2002 )

Sadly, Joost, you have fallen headlong into a well-known trap! :embarrassed:

Law 43B3 says
Quote:

If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is .....

but that it means it only applies after the violations mentiond [eg looking at one of the other hands]. Since this behaviour has just about been stamped out, Laws 43B2 and 43B3 practically never apply.

:smile:

Fortunately, one of my Norwegian friends has solved the problem. Dummy was in breach of Law 42B1 rather than Law 61B. Ok, I know she was really in breach of both but the European Bridge League TD guide [regrettably both out of print and obsolete, but this Law has not changed fortunately from when it was written] has said that Law 42B1 applies, Law 61B does not. That means that L63B does not apply :rolleyes: so the revoke is not established nor do any of the nasty penalties therein apply. The defender may correct it if in time.




---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm
 
 
Joost Boswijk

7 posts
bridgetalk member

Reply
Re: Dummy draws attention to revoke ( 07:23:53 TueAug 27 2002 )

:embarrassed:I know, I know... read first, read again and then make sure that you haven't missed anything. I've been told that over and over again during the course.

Regards,

Joost

  

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

7 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 6 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

 Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

Register :: Log in

The time is now 00:47:13 Wed Aug 27 2003

Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF

Legend :: Read Topic :: Unread Topic

Email Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status