bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: Director Discovers Revoke

7 posts
bridgetalk member

Director Discovers Revoke ( 20:02:44 MonJul 8 2002 )

Would appreciate your advice on the following: Can a director while contemplating a frivolous claim of damage use 81C6 to penalize a revoke not discovered by any of the players?

N dealer: 1D - 3C - P - 3H, all pass. North led the K of D, south played the 3; North led A of D, south played the 8. North continued with a diamond and South ruffed it. Play continued to the end of the hand. Table result: 3H, -1.

Director called. EW stated: 1. they were damaged because North played low-high with a doubleton stating it was illegal to do so without a pre-alert as stated in the new ACBL alert procedure change. 2. Had they known it was a doubleton they would have trumped it. [Nothing was ever said about the revoke!] The "expert" player insisted I refer to the new alert procedure. I told them to score the actual result and I would get back to them.

........................Q7
........................52
........................AK754
........................QJ62
AJT..................................543
....AKJT63...............................8
....JT6..................................Q2
....9....................................AKT8743
.........................K9862
.........................Q974
.........................983
.........................5

During the second round, I got back to this problem. No where could I find evidence of a pre-alert for discarding. I decided his confusion was leading low from a doubleton as a pre-alert in the alert procedure changes.
However, when I looked at the actual hands, I saw South's revoke. Even the person who actually revoked (a known, weak, yet very ethical player) did not know she revoked
I adjusted the score to +170 for EW, taking the revoke into consideration. Was I correct?
Thank you,
Dini Romito

JimO

175 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Director Discovers Revoke ( 21:16:11 MonJul 8 2002 )

First. leading low from a doubleton requires a pre-alert in ACBL events; upside-down signals do not.

Second, the penalty for an established revoke does not apply after 1) the non-offending side has called on the nest deal, or 2) the round has ended. See Laws 64B4 and 64B5.

So it would be inappropriate to assess a 2-trick penalty (but appropriate to restore equity - adjust the score to whatever EW would have done without the revoke; at best +140 here).

-Jim O'Neil

Shuffler

7 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Director Discovers Revoke ( 02:58:58 TueJul 9 2002 )

Let's assume I handled this problem during the same round when I was called to the table. In my review of the hands, I discover the revoke. Would I then apply 81C3 and take the revoke into consideration for the score or would I keep silent and give EW +140?
Thank you, Dini

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Director Discovers Revoke ( 04:37:58 TueJul 9 2002 )

I agree with Jim as to the ruling given the original scenario. I think that if you discover the revoke at the time you're called to the table, you have to rule that the penalty applies.

bridgeaddict

Unavailable
510 posts

Re: Director Discovers Revoke ( 21:49:52 SatAug 10 2002 )

Just moving this here from the "Ask an Expert" forum.

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

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

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 StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

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