A club director's worst nightmare

[Tim DeLaney]

STaC game (Sectional Tournament at Clubs)
N-S Vul South deals

742
KT832
---
AJ652
--- KQT65
AJ964 Q5
984 KQJ653
K9874 ---
AJ983
7
AT72
QT3

Auction Unknown. East is declarer at 4D (undoubled!)

East has 5000+ masterpoints; N-S are both "C" players.

I am called to the table for a revoke. At trick 5, declarer was in
dummy and led a diamond, the first time the suit was played. North, of
course showed out, declarer played low, and South discarded a spade(!)

Several tricks later, I was called to the table because of the
established revoke. I made the routine ruling of a one trick transfer
at the end of the hand. (I could see that South would take a trick
with the DA.)

East protested, saying that the revoke "screwed up the whole hand",
and that he should be entitled to more than the one trick penalty
because he would have played the hand differently if he thought South
could have a trump.

I was unaware that North had showed out, and I took East at his word.
But I informed him that I would not award him another trick based on a
vague hypothetical, and that he would have to demonstrate actual
damage that exceeded the trick he was already awarded.

So, we proceeded to review the play starting with trick six. Much back-
and-forth from East about what he might have done differently. When we
got to trick ten or so, East stood up, declaring in a loud voice "I
quit!" I actually thought he was going to leave the building, but he
just went to the next table, muttering under his breath, apparently
abandoning his assertion that he deserved another trick. My guess is
that he realized that he had no case. The entire episode took 5 or 6
minutes. It was only after that that I realized that both opponents
must have showed out at trick 5.

It was only afterward that I looked at the entire deal to make sure
that the one trick ruling was correct. When I realized that both North
and South must have showed out on the first round of diamonds, I also
realized that East was less than honest in his assertion that he
thought South was out of diamonds. He knew full well that at least one
opponent had revoked. It just didn't occur to me that all four players
might omit the relevant detail that both North and South had showed
out on the first round of the suit.

The upshot was that we wasted a lot of time, and arguably East was at
fault for that, because his claim of additional damage was arguably
frivolous. (Maybe I should have issued a PP?)

But the question for directors everywhere is this: How should a
director handle such a problem? It is time-consuming to go through the
play trick-by-trick, and unless this is done on the spot, there is no
way to decide the issue fairly. Bridge, after all, is a timed event,
and it is arguably unfair to the rest of the field to delay the
progress of the game by several minutes because one contestant might
think he has a legitimate issue with a revoke ruling.

Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?

[Gerben Dirksen]

Hi, there is no requirement to call the director when you know that
one or both opponents have revoked. I am surprised that you didn't
find out earlier that both defenders didn't follow to the trick.

There are two possibilities:

1. Play is finished. Here you can let the table turn around the revoke
trick, you will notice directly that it contains only two diamonds.

2. Play has not finished: You tell them to finish play and keep the
cards in order so you can do the same as in #1.

Anyway, it is up to the director to determine how many tricks should
be awarded. He should track the early play and then play the hand out
himself using the hand record alone (without the players). This can be
done in a break for a playing director. There is no hurry to finish
this directly.

What WAS the play in T1-4. Whatever it was, playing trumps at T5 was a
mistake, so it seems.

Gerben

[Eric Leong]

I think you should have said something along the lines of
"I have to think about it. Let's talk about it later."
Wait to the end of the game and see if the appeal is really relevant to the final outcome. Chances are the problem will go away. At minimum, you don't want to hold up the whole movement discussing a decision at length.

Eric Leong

[David Stevenson]

Tim DeLaney wrote

You have to go through it trick by trick as far as possible, but you
speed it up, not letting East tell you millions of things. Since you
start with the revoke trick you might have noticed that no-one followed.
You also get some idea of the problem form both sides.

But you seem to have overlooked the most important thing of all:
***you do not decide judgement rulings at the time at the table***. So
after noting down the tricks you tell them to move on and you will rule
later.

As for holding up the room for five or six minutes, you don't. When
it is time ot move them, you move them.

>Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
>opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
>them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?

Active ethics is voluntary. If South did not tell oyu, then [a] you
did not ask him the right questions and [b] his personal ethics [aka
Active Ethics] are not your affair.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Eric Leong wrote

>I think you should have said something along the lines of
>"I have to think about it. Let's talk about it later."
>Wait to the end of the game and see if the appeal is really relevant to
>the final outcome. Chances are the problem will go away. At minimum,
>you don't want to hold up the whole movement discussing a decision at
>length.

You are required to rule: the problem will not "go away". But of
course it should be decided at the end of play.

[Nick France]

> progress of the game by several minutes because one contestant mightr

> think he has a legitimate issue with a revoke ruling.
>
> Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
> opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
> them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?

Regardless of the actual ruling I do dislike 'experts' who know
something is wrong and then try to claim injury because they now claim
they would do something different if they had known (when they really
did know).

Nick France

[Nick France]

On Feb 13, 9:44 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl:+44 7778 409 955begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel:+44 151 677 7412begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would disagree that active ethics are not the concern of a
director. While there is no penalty for not following active ethics I
think the director is within is authority to suggest to the player
that maybe he should have pointed out to the player that active ethics
would have had him asking the opponents if they had diamonds knowing
one of them did.

Nick France

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<72cc4077-0a22-478e...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Nick France <gand...@optimum.net> wrote:

> I would disagree that active ethics are not the concern of a
> director. While there is no penalty for not following active ethics I
> think the director is within is authority to suggest to the player
> that maybe he should have pointed out to the player that active ethics
> would have had him asking the opponents if they had diamonds knowing
> one of them did.

However, active ethics doesn't require you to disadvantage yourself.

He knows that at least one of the opponents revoked, which means he'll
be getting at least a one trick if he allows it to be established.
Asking about the revoke at the time it occurred will prevent it from
being established, replacing it with a penalty card. While this can be
helpful, it isn't nearly as sure as the revoke benefit.

However, it looks like this guy was trying for even more than that, by
claiming that he would have played the hand differently if he'd known
which player had revoked.

BTW, I'm really curious to know how this hand managed to go 4 tricks
without any trumps being played. Or did the OP mean that trick 5 was
the first time that trumps were LED, as opposed to being used to ruff
with?

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[derek]

On Feb 13, 8:11 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The upshot was that we wasted a lot of time, and arguably East was at
> fault for that, because his claim of additional damage was arguably
> frivolous. (Maybe I should have issued a PP?)

You'd certainly be within your rights, and since I consider this a
case of bullying the rabbits, I think a penalty is appropriate.

> But the question for directors everywhere is this: How should a
> director handle such a problem? It is time-consuming to go through the
> play trick-by-trick, and unless this is done on the spot, there is no
> way to decide the issue fairly.

I generally _don't_ let them discuss the hand with me. If declarer
can't tell me right away what he'd have done differently, I tell them
I'll look at the hand and get back to them. That has the advantage
that, without all the players talking, I'd probably realize sooner
that both players showed out on the same trick. It also gets them
moving to the next board.

> Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
> opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
> them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?

I wouldn't go so far. I generally do give weaker players a prod when
I know they've revoked, but you're _ethically_ entitled to take
advantage of a revoke. Strong players, I call the TD as soon as I
know the revoke is established. However, arguing that you would have
played differently if you'd known about a revoke - when there were
still FOUR cards outstanding - goes way beyond "active" ethics.

[Bud H]

I would note the position at the time of the established revoke and
attempt to learn the play up to the point of the director call.

The penalty is a one trick transfer. I would inform declarer
(especially after his insistence) that I would review the hand to
determine if equity would require more than the one trick penalty.

(If declarer really did not play an diamond honor from hand and
allowed South to potentially win the ten and then lead ace and
another, I don't think he's going to deserve more than the one trick
transfer!)

Bud H

[Nick Wedd]

On 13/02/2012 12:11, Tim DeLaney wrote:
> East has 5000+ masterpoints; N-S are both "C" players.
>
> I am called to the table for a revoke. At trick 5, declarer was in
> dummy and led a diamond, the first time the suit was played. North, of
> course showed out, declarer played low, and South discarded a spade(!)
>
> Several tricks later, I was called to the table because of the
> established revoke. I made the routine ruling of a one trick transfer
> at the end of the hand. (I could see that South would take a trick
> with the DA.)
>
> East protested, saying that the revoke "screwed up the whole hand",
> and that he should be entitled to more than the one trick penalty
> because he would have played the hand differently if he thought South
> could have a trump.

If East has 5000 masterpoints, he knew there had been a revoke as soon
as he saw it. His claim that it "screwed up the whole hand" and he
would have played differently without it is a deliberate attempt to
deceive the director. Isn't there a way to penalise this?

Nick

[Tim DeLaney]

That indeed is one of my implicit questions.

[Stu Goodgold]

The Law allows that the NOS not call attention to a revoke. So how can following the law be unethical? You might argue that preventing the opps from establishing a revoke would be a noble gesture, but it's certainly ethical to ignore it.

For that matter, what difference does it make that declarer had 5000 MPs and N/S were C players? Every novice knows he must follow suit. It may be true that C players revoke a higher percentage of the time than experts, but their ratio of bad bids and plays compared to experts is 2 orders of magnitude greater. Who considers it ethical to let C players take back bids or plays that are clear errors? Why should a revoke be different?

The only sympathy I have for declarer is that he really cannot tell whether it was North or South who revoked. As others have said, you should tell him to score it as a 1 trick penalty and you would review the hand afterwards and make an adjustment to restore equity if necessary.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Stu Goodgold]

As a general principle, how do you plan the play when you know an opp has revoked but you don't know which one (or even both)? Makes it kinda hard to count the hand doesn't it?

The fact that East failed to mention that the revoke was obvious at trick 5 does indeed reek of undue influence. A PP might be appropriate in a tournament, but wasn't this just a club game? I consider the director's lack of authority to be contributory to the OPs problem.

[rthe...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 13, 12:11 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:

[revoke situation]

This is your worst nightmare?

Roy

[derek]

On Feb 13, 1:39 pm, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The Law allows that the NOS not call attention to a revoke.  So how can following the law be unethical? You might argue that preventing the opps from establishing a revoke would be a noble gesture, but it's certainly ethical to ignore it.
>
> For that matter, what difference does it make that declarer had 5000 MPs and N/S were C players?  Every novice knows he must follow suit.
>  It may be true that C players revoke a higher percentage of the time than experts, but their ratio of bad bids and plays compared to experts
> is 2 orders of magnitude greater.  Who considers it ethical to let C players take back bids or plays that are clear errors?  Why should a revoke be different?

Because it's not really a revoke until it's established. My
experience is that beginners (and that _doesn't_ mean all C players)
get so flustered when they revoke that the mere fact that they played
the wrong card is probably going to assist me. So, I'll generally
give beginners a break. Noble? Not particularly; it's more like
refusing to run up the score in a lopsided sporting competition.
Besides which, generally a card played or a bid made is already set in
stone, save for a few specific exceptions, while we have laws
specifically granting the right to ask our opponents if they're really
out of a suit, so - in law - it really _is_ different.

[Hank Youngerman]

I don't think active ethics requires you to call attention to a revoke
by the other side.

You also are under no obligation to resolve the matter then and there;
you can consider the play at your leisure.

I might ask declarer what line of play he was contemplating when
trumps were 6-3-0-0 around the table. Declarer is still obligated to
play bridge, and any mental discombobulation brought on by the revoke
is not adjustable. Take the extreme case where third hand ruffs the
opening lead and then returns the suit that was led. Declarer now
loses focus and takes 6 of the 9 remaining tricks available to him.
He gets an extra trick or two for the revoke, but he won't get the 3
tricks he slopped because he didn't pay attention. In this particular
case, I would rule that guessing which opponent revoked is just as
much a part of bridge as guessing which way to take a 2-way finesse,
and he still has to try to take all the tricks he can, and he'll get
his extra trick at the end.

I'd think declarer would be somewhat embarrassed by the whole thing.

[blackshoe]

East is asking for a Law 64C ruling (regarding a score adjustment when the NOS is not sufficiently compensated by the revoke penalty). As others have said, such a ruling, like all judgment rulings, should not be done at the table, but later, after due consideration and probably consultation. So record the play up until the time you were called, tell them to get on with it, and go away to think about it.* Later, when you've made your ruling, inform both pairs, and inform them of their right to appeal. Do *not* argue or discuss the ruling with any player. If they persist in trying to do so, give 'em a DP.

*Alternatively, if you think it may be relevant, stay and record the rest of the play. This should not interfere with or slow down the play. Remember to call the round on time! :-)

[David Stevenson]

Nick France wrote

>I would disagree that active ethics are not the concern of a
>director. While there is no penalty for not following active ethics I
>think the director is within is authority to suggest to the player
>that maybe he should have pointed out to the player that active ethics
>would have had him asking the opponents if they had diamonds knowing
>one of them did.

Oh yes? Are you really going to tell everyone that they should
practice Active Ethics, which are voluntary and basically your opinion
of what should be?

If so you go far beyond what a TD should do, you will be thought of as
a menace, and you will never be a good TD.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[derek]

On Feb 13, 1:55 pm, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As a general principle, how do you plan the play when you know an opp has revoked but you don't know which one (or even both)?  Makes it kinda hard to count the hand doesn't it?
>
>  The fact that East failed to mention that the revoke was obvious at trick 5 does indeed reek of undue influence.  A PP might be appropriate in a tournament, but wasn't this just a club game?  I consider the director's lack of authority to be contributory to the OPs problem.

It's a STAC - which if you want to apply differential directing,
should still be treated as a tournament.

[Nick Wedd]

On 13/02/2012 17:39, Stu Goodgold wrote:
> The Law allows that the NOS not call attention to a revoke. So how can following the law be unethical? You might argue that preventing the opps from establishing a revoke would be a noble gesture, but it's certainly ethical to ignore it.

No-one has claimed that allowing the revoke to become established was
unethical.

> For that matter, what difference does it make that declarer had 5000 MPs and N/S were C players? Every novice knows he must follow suit. It may be true that C players revoke a higher percentage of the time than experts, but their ratio of bad bids and plays compared to experts is 2 orders of magnitude greater. Who considers it ethical to let C players take back bids or plays that are clear errors? Why should a revoke be different?

If there are four trumps out and they split 0-0, a weak player might
just fail to notice something wrong. But a player with 5000 MPs will
certainly realise that someone has revoked. If he then claims to have
based his play on the assumption that S has the real void, you may be
inclined to doubt his honesty.

Nick

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

derek skrev:

> Because it's not really a revoke until it's established.

Your definition differs from that of the law then. See law 61A.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Nick France]

On Feb 13, 2:03 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> Nick France wrote
>
> >I would disagree that active ethics are not the concern of a
> >director.  While there is no penalty for not following active ethics I
> >think the director is within is authority to suggest to the player
> >that maybe he should have pointed out to the player that active ethics
> >would have had him asking the opponents if they had diamonds knowing
> >one of them did.
>
>    Oh yes?  Are you really going to tell everyone that they should
> practice Active Ethics, which are voluntary and basically your opinion
> of what should be?
>
>    If so you go far beyond what a TD should do, you will be thought of as
> a menace, and you will never be a good TD.
>
> --
> David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways

> Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl:+44 7778 409 955begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel:+44 151 677 7412begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

This was a game at a club. A director at a club should look out for
his weak players and should watch out for strong players that want to
manipulate the rules.

What is legal and what is right and not always the same thing. Here I
will do what is right especially since it isn't illegal.

Nick France

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Nick France skrev:

> What is legal and what is right and not always the same thing. Here I
> will do what is right especially since it isn't illegal.

But is is not right, and it is not legal to make demands on the
players that are not founded in the laws.

And why all this trouble? Give East a PP. That will teach him not
to screw up the game for other players, and it is quite legal.

[Nick France]

To me what you legally have to do and what you should do aren't the
same. As for East's claim that he would have played differently if he
thought South had a trump is strange. He knew at least one opponent
had some trump or is he claiming he didn't realize there were trump
out.

The director handled the situation poorly in going over the hand
immediately but one wonders if there was an intimidation factor
involved. Looking at the hands it becomes even more important to find
out the bidding as that might tell a good player who actually had not
followed to trump at trick 4.

One additional point, since it is a STAC, the director should have had
the hand records so he could look at the probable result without a
revoke before he talks to East.

Nick France

[judyorcarl]

What is the basis for your statement that there is no requirement to
call the director when an infraction has been discovered?

On the contrary!

Carl

[Charles Brenner]

> opponent had revoked. ... (Maybe I should have issued a PP?)

Poor East needs a criminal defense attorney; let me give it a shot.

First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
thought South void in diamonds. East shouldn't assume so, since there
are obviously two other possibilities (both players revoked, South
revoked), but sometimes in the heat of a confusing situation we don't
zero in on the correct simplifying principle. Anyway, never mind
whether East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
*possibility* that South was void.

Second, it seems implausible and I certainly am not about to try to
construct an example, but it just might be that in a situation of this
sort East really is disadvantaged as claimed. It may be that
1. Without the revoke, East plays a certain way and takes x tricks.
2. With both players showing out, East considers three possibilities
a) North is the one who revoked;
b) South is the one who revoked;
c) Both revoked
and some set of play strategies Sa each of which give at least x-1
tricks (the -1 coming back from revoke penalty) if (a) is true, some
set Sb which similarly protect against (b) being true, and a set Sc
which protect against (c) being true, but no line that belongs to all
of Sa, Sb, and Sc.

Thus the mere fact that East knows *some* revoke occurred doesn't
necessarily, not by pure logic, mean that East can fully protect
himself.

And it may just have been the case that my client, poor East, was
sufficiently befuddled that some confused version of what I describe
above was his state of mind even

> Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
> opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
> them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?

Isn't accepting revoke penalties a legitimate part of the game?

Charles

[Mark Brader]

Charles Brenner:

> First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he

> thought South void in diamonds.... Anyway, never mind whether

> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
> *possibility* that South was void.

Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "He seems unable to win without the added
m...@vex.net thrill of changing sides." -- Chess

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<4215187.728.1329154766779.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbmr9>,

Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> The Law allows that the NOS not call attention to a revoke. So how can
> following the law be unethical? You might argue that preventing the opps from
> establishing a revoke would be a noble gesture, but it's certainly ethical to
> ignore it.

"Active ethics" generally refers to going beyond what's required by the
laws, often using real-world morality to guide your actions.

>
> For that matter, what difference does it make that declarer had 5000 MPs and
> N/S were C players? Every novice knows he must follow suit. It may be true
> that C players revoke a higher percentage of the time than experts, but their
> ratio of bad bids and plays compared to experts is 2 orders of magnitude
> greater. Who considers it ethical to let C players take back bids or plays
> that are clear errors? Why should a revoke be different?

I think the point is that an experienced declarer knew that someone
revoked, so it's ridiculous for him to claim that he played for both of
them to be void, and therefore misplayed the hand. He doesn't know
which one revoked, but why should he play for one versus the other?

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<13e57c4c-61d4-4c8c...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

judyorcarl <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the basis for your statement that there is no requirement to
> call the director when an infraction has been discovered?
>
> On the contrary!

You only have to call the director when someone has called attention to
an irregularity. If no one calls attention to the revoke, there's no
requirement to call the TD.

And there's no requirement to call attention to a revoke by an opponent.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <4f396bef$0$285$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> derek skrev:
>
> > Because it's not really a revoke until it's established.
>
> Your definition differs from that of the law then. See law 61A.

I think he means "it's not subject to the revoke penalty until it's
established."

[derek]

On Feb 13, 3:03 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> Nick France wrote
>
> >I would disagree that active ethics are not the concern of a
> >director.  While there is no penalty for not following active ethics I
> >think the director is within is authority to suggest to the player
> >that maybe he should have pointed out to the player that active ethics
> >would have had him asking the opponents if they had diamonds knowing
> >one of them did.
>
>    Oh yes?  Are you really going to tell everyone that they should
> practice Active Ethics, which are voluntary and basically your opinion
> of what should be?
>
>    If so you go far beyond what a TD should do, you will be thought of as
> a menace, and you will never be a good TD.

We are talking about a club (albeit STAC) game, here. A club director
has to do more (and less, I realize) than a tournament director. It's
extremely important to _make_ the club environment comfortable for the
newbies, and "suggesting" to the player that his actions (which
regardless of "active ethics", are penalizable) could have been more
reasonable is hardly going "far beyond" reasonable.

[derek]

On Feb 13, 4:01 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

> derek skrev:
>
> > Because it's not really a revoke until it's established.
>
> Your definition differs from that of the law then. See law 61A.

%^&*()_!!!!!. No it doesn't. I just knew some lawyer would have to
object to that. I'm trying to make a point about the difference
between revoking and establishing a revoke. Regardless of whether
it's established, there are still penalties (since the revoking card
will usually become a penalty card), but they're _quite_ different
things.

[derek]

On Feb 13, 4:11 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

> Nick France skrev:
>
> > What is legal and what is right and not always the same thing.  Here I
> > will do what is right especially since it isn't illegal.
>
> But is is not right, and it is not legal to make demands on the
> players that are not founded in the laws.
>
> And why all this trouble? Give East a PP. That will teach him not
> to screw up the game for other players, and it is quite legal.

So, Nick would "suggest" to the player that his action is
inappropriate, and you would penalize him? Sorry, but Nick's choice
is entirely legal. Yours is potentially draconian (not that I believe
it's wrong - I'd want to be there, to decide whether the player
deserved it).

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mark Brader skrev:

>> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
>> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
>> *possibility* that South was void.

> Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.

Exactly - and he forgot that a player exploits the errors of the
opponents at his own risk.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

derek skrev:

>> Your definition differs from that of the law then. See law 61A.

> %^&*()_!!!!!. No it doesn't. I just knew some lawyer would have to
> object to that.

Then maybe you chose an ineffective way of expressing yourself?

[Adam Beneschan]

I'm getting confused. There are two topics here: (1) East didn't
point out his opponents' irregularity when it was obvious that someone
blew it, but waited for the revoke to become established; (2) East's
actions after the hand in trying to claim he was owed more than one
trick.

Nick is talking about #1, and so far I think he's the only one
suggesting that East should have not let the revoke become established
(based on "active ethics"). I don't think you believe East did
anything wrong there, either, since in another post you said "you're
ethically entitled to take advantage of a revoke". David is reacting
pretty strongly to Nick's theory. Since you're talking about East
doing something that's penalizable, I'm guessing that you're talking
about #2 and not #1.

So which is it? Am I just totally confused, or is someone else
getting points mixed up? Or let me ask it another way: ignoring
East's attempt to gain extra tricks from a 64C ruling, (a) do you
think it was wrong, in any sense, for East to let the revoke become
established; (b) would you think it was wrong if this were a regular
club game and not a STaC?

-- Adam

[derek]

On Feb 13, 8:04 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

> derek skrev:
>
> >> Your definition differs from that of the law then. See law 61A.
> > %^&*()_!!!!!. No it doesn't.  I just knew some lawyer would have to
> > object to that.
>
> Then maybe you chose an ineffective way of expressing yourself?

Maybe. You decide.

[derek]

On Feb 13, 6:20 pm, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:11 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

> > thought South was out of diamonds. He knew full well that at least one
> > opponent had revoked. ... (Maybe I should have issued a PP?)
>
> Poor East needs a criminal defense attorney; let me give it a shot.
>
> First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
> thought South void in diamonds.

My learned colleague is arguing a fact not posed in evidence. The
plaintiff said (as noted above) that the declarer "knew full well that
at least one
opponent had revoked." I believe that is simple arithmetic, and not
worth the courts consideration.

> Second, it seems implausible and I certainly am not about to try to
> construct an example, but it just might be that in a situation of this
> sort East really is disadvantaged as claimed. It may be that
> 1. Without the revoke, East plays a certain way and takes x tricks.
> 2. With both players showing out, East considers three possibilities
> a) North is the one who revoked;
> b) South is the one who revoked;
> c) Both revoked
> and some set of play strategies Sa each of which give at least x-1
> tricks (the -1 coming back from revoke penalty) if (a) is true, some
> set Sb which similarly protect against (b) being true, and a set Sc
> which protect against (c) being true, but no line that belongs to all
> of Sa, Sb, and Sc.
>
> Thus the mere fact that East knows *some* revoke occurred doesn't
> necessarily, not by pure logic, mean that East can fully protect
> himself.

Indeed, and the prosecution claims that in such a case it is in
declarer's interest to then (as soon as the revoke is established)
call the director so that he may gain protection agains such
eventualities.

> And it may just have been the case that my client, poor East, was
> sufficiently befuddled that some confused version of what I describe
> above was his state of mind even

Your poor client classes as an "expert", at least in the standards of
club play, and can be reasonably excused for miscounting one, or
possibly two, trumps. Three would suggest he needs a medical checkup.
Four is a bit much, don't you think?

> > Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
> > opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
> > them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?
>
> Isn't accepting revoke penalties a legitimate part of the game?

Definitely.

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 13, 2:47 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Charles Brenner:
>
> > First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
> > thought South void in diamonds....  Anyway, never mind whether
> > East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
> > point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
> > *possibility* that South was void.
>
> Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.

Do you mean without calling attention before the revoke was
established, or after? And whichever you mean, what is the relevance?

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 13, 3:58 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

> Mark Brader skrev:
>
> >> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
> >> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
> >> *possibility* that South was void.
> > Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.
>
> Exactly - and he forgot that a player exploits the errors of the
> opponents at his own risk.

Are you referring to some rule? If so, what rule, and how does it
define "exploit"?

Charles

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<2be5668c-00ff-4431...@tj4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Maybe he's confusing it with the Law that says that you take inferences
from tempo breaks at your own risk.

[David Stevenson]

judyorcarl wrote

>What is the basis for your statement that there is no requirement to
>call the director when an infraction has been discovered?

It may be a question of what "discovered" means, but if no-one has
drawn attention to an irregularity there is no Law that says you have
to.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[David Stevenson]

Hank Youngerman wrote
>I don't think active ethics requires you to call attention to a revoke
>by the other side.

Even if it did, active ethics is not a requirement of bridge Law.

[s]

>Declarer is still obligated to
>play bridge, and any mental discombobulation brought on by the revoke
>is not adjustable.

Fascinating. And which Law says that, pray?

[David Stevenson]

Nick France wrote

>On Feb 13, 2:03 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> Nick France wrote
>>
>> >I would disagree that active ethics are not the concern of a
>> >director.  While there is no penalty for not following active ethics I
>> >think the director is within is authority to suggest to the player
>> >that maybe he should have pointed out to the player that active ethics
>> >would have had him asking the opponents if they had diamonds knowing
>> >one of them did.
>>
>>    Oh yes?  Are you really going to tell everyone that they should
>> practice Active Ethics, which are voluntary and basically your opinion
>> of what should be?
>>
>>    If so you go far beyond what a TD should do, you will be thought of as
>> a menace, and you will never be a good TD.

>This was a game at a club. A director at a club should look out for
>his weak players and should watch out for strong players that want to
>manipulate the rules.

Says who? Are you really suggesting ruling wrong because you shoudnot
rule in favour of a stronger player?

>What is legal and what is right and not always the same thing. Here I
>will do what is right especially since it isn't illegal.

What you mean, what you see as right, not what is right.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 13, 4:12 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:20 pm, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:11 am, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > thought South was out of diamonds. He knew full well that at least one
> > > opponent had revoked. ... (Maybe I should have issued a PP?)
>
> > Poor East needs a criminal defense attorney; let me give it a shot.
>
> > First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
> > thought South void in diamonds.
>
> My learned colleague is arguing a fact not posed in evidence.

On the contrary; I was arguing against the statement "I also realized
that East was less than honest in his assertion that he thought South
was out of diamonds" which you carelessly half-snipped.

> The
> plaintiff said (as noted above) that the declarer "knew full well that
> at least one
> opponent had revoked."  I believe that is simple arithmetic, and not
> worth the courts consideration.

Absolutely worth no one's consideration. In the interest of being
helpful, I'll point out that you raised it because you were confused
as to what I was responding to.

> > Second, it seems implausible and I certainly am not about to try to
> > construct an example, but it just might be that in a situation of this
> > sort East really is disadvantaged as claimed. It may be that
> > 1. Without the revoke, East plays a certain way and takes x tricks.
> > 2. With both players showing out, East considers three possibilities
> > a) North is the one who revoked;
> > b) South is the one who revoked;
> > c) Both revoked
> > and some set of play strategies Sa each of which give at least x-1
> > tricks (the -1 coming back from revoke penalty) if (a) is true, some
> > set Sb which similarly protect against (b) being true, and a set Sc
> > which protect against (c) being true, but no line that belongs to all
> > of Sa, Sb, and Sc.
>
> > Thus the mere fact that East knows *some* revoke occurred doesn't
> > necessarily, not by pure logic, mean that East can fully protect
> > himself.
>
> Indeed, and the prosecution claims that in such a case it is in
> declarer's interest to then (as soon as the revoke is established)
> call the director so that he may gain protection agains such
> eventualities.

Claiming something is so doesn't make it so, even when you claim in
fake courtroom diction. In a real court or in real life, it's actual
reasons that count. Besides, to say it's in declarer's "interest" is
just giving advice, nothing to do with right or wrong.

Most importantly it's certainly irrelevant unless you're claiming that
declarer had an unfair and larcenous intent in playing on. That
strikes me as far-fetched at best, and anyway impossible to prove.

> > And it may just have been the case that my client, poor East, was
> > sufficiently befuddled that some confused version of what I describe
> > above was his state of mind even
>
> Your poor client classes as an "expert", at least in the standards of
> club play, and can be reasonably excused for miscounting one, or
> possibly two, trumps. Three would suggest he needs a medical checkup.
> Four is a bit much, don't you think?

I'm having trouble guessing what misunderstanding your last comments
are based on. I didn't imply that East miscounted anything. That would
only be true if East were oblivious to there having been any revoke at
all. But all three of my hypotheses -- (a), (b), and (c) -- involved
at least one revoke. There was no (d). Please go back and re-read.

Charles

[derek]

Some of both. Per #1, Nick merely said he'd "suggest" to declarer
that he could behave better. I completely agree with that, yet David
not only disagreed, but he said anyone who did that could never be a
good director. I think it's part of my job as a club director. And
yes, I _do_ think it's right "to tell everyone that they should
practice Active Ethics". Now, there's no requirement for them to
listen...

So then I added my own feeling regarding #2 - that his further actions
were reprehensible and _should_ be penalized. I think Mark put it
best when he pointed out that the problems really only occurred after
declarer continued playing once the revoke was established. If he
calls the director as soon as the revoke is established, he'll get the
best result to which he's entitled, without the accompanying
theatrics.

>
> So which is it?  Am I just totally confused, or is someone else
> getting points mixed up?  Or let me ask it another way: ignoring
> East's attempt to gain extra tricks from a 64C ruling, (a) do you
> think it was wrong, in any sense, for East to let the revoke become
> established; (b) would you think it was wrong if this were a regular
> club game and not a STaC?

(a) definitely not and (b) not at all - I was merely reacting to
David's characterization of actually talking to an offender as being
beyond what a TD should do.

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 13, 4:37 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <2be5668c-00ff-4431-87e3-f2c39dea4...@tj4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>  Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 3:58 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
> > wrote:
> > > Mark Brader skrev:
>
> > > >> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
> > > >> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
> > > >> *possibility* that South was void.
> > > > Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.
>
> > > Exactly - and he forgot that a player exploits the errors of the
> > > opponents at his own risk.
>
> > Are you referring to some rule? If so, what rule, and how does it
> > define "exploit"?
>
> Maybe he's confusing it with the Law that says that you take inferences
> from tempo breaks at your own risk.

Could be.

[Mark Brader]

Charles Brenner:
>>> First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
>>> thought South void in diamonds....  Anyway, never mind whether
>>> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
>>> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
>>> *possibility* that South was void.

Mark Brader:

>> Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.

Charles Brenner:

> Do you mean without calling attention before the revoke was
> established, or after?

Before. That was meant to be implied by "to play on".

> And whichever you mean, what is the relevance?

If the revoke is corrected, he knows where the void is and (in that
respect) no longer has to base his play on a possibility.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I'm not going to post a revision: even USENET
m...@vex.net | readers can divide by 100." -- Brian Reid

[Dave Flower]

On Feb 14, 12:45 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hank Youngerman wrote
>
> >I don't think active ethics requires you to call attention to a revoke
> >by the other side.
>
>   Even if it did, active ethics is not a requirement of bridge Law.
>
>                                 [s]
>
> >Declarer is still obligated to
> >play bridge, and any mental discombobulation brought on by the revoke
> >is not adjustable.
>
>   Fascinating.  And which Law says that, pray?
>
> --
> David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

> <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel: +44 151 677 7412

> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

I'm not certain that declarer was not obliged to draw attention to the
revoke. L9A4 states:

There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law
committed by one's own side . . .


The lawmakers chose to include the last five words, so it seems to me
that there is an, albeit thin, inference that there is an obligation
to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by the opposing
side.

I accept that this is being legalistic, but then so was declarer.

Dave Flower

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

First, there is no Law requiring you to draw attention to an
opponent's infraction.

Second, it is a well-known world-wide interpretation of this that you
may delay calling attention to an infraction by an opponent.

There is really no point in having your own interpretation which
disagrees with everyone who matters. It is not like rare and complex
situatins which may not have been thought about.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[Charles Brenner]

I always read those words as having an implied "even". I.e. the law
could have read: "Obviously there is no obligation to draw attention
to an infraction by the opponents. There is also no obligation for an
infraction even by one's on side." Legalistically, all the verbosity
was stripped, even "even".

Charles

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 13, 10:41 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Charles Brenner:
>
> >>> First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
> >>> thought South void in diamonds....  Anyway, never mind whether
> >>> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
> >>> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
> >>> *possibility* that South was void.
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> Only after he decided to play on without calling attention to the revoke.
>
> Charles Brenner:
>
> > Do you mean without calling attention before the revoke was
> > established, or after?
>
> Before.  That was meant to be implied by "to play on".
>
> > And whichever you mean, what is the relevance?
>
> If the revoke is corrected, he knows where the void is and (in that
> respect) no longer has to base his play on a possibility.

True, but so what? Are you just making a whimsical comment, or is it
in some way intended to rebut my argument?

Charles

[Dave Flower]

On Feb 14, 12:56 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As I said, my argument was a bit thin, but I regard the player's
conduct as totally unacceptable, and was looking for an excuse to rule
against him.

I wonder if the North/South pair ever came back to the club

Dave Flower

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<2afe7e39-5ef1-4ef2...@4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,

The way I see it, it's generally to your advantage to call attention to
an opponent's infraction, so there's no need for a law telling you to do
so. There's already a law saying you have to play to win, so taking
advantage of infractions is implicit in that.

But it's usually to your disadvantage to call attention to your own
infraction. Absent this law, players might feel there's something
nefarious about keeping silent, but the law assuages their guilt.

[Fred.]

On the surface East's claims looks empty and,
perhaps, somewhat deceptive. Unless East is
a 5000 masterpoint walrus who cannot count
trump, East knows there is a revoke.

However, East does not know who is revoking,
North, South or, remotely, both, and, so, does
not know the division of the diamonds.

So, the question is, assuming that the diamond
distribution really is rrelevent to the outcome,
just how much of the responsibility for East's
ignorance rests on East's own decision not
to call attention to the irregularity and how
much rests on the irregularity itself.

Does anyone think they have a clear answer out
of the laws?

Fred.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Feb 13, 7:43 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> (a) definitely not and (b) not at all - I was merely reacting to
> David's characterization of actually talking to an offender as being
> beyond what a TD should do.

Ah, I see. I didn't read David as saying TD's shouldn't ever talk to
offenders about their ethics. I thought he was just referring to the
specific case of TD telling a player that he should have asked the
opponents whether they were actually able to follow suit. In any
case, that explains my confusion, I think. Thanks.

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

Fred. wrote

Calling attention to a revoke when it happens is to the disadvantage
of declarer's side, so cannot be criticised.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[axm...@hotmail.com]

Tim DeLaney wrote:
> STaC game (Sectional Tournament at Clubs)
> N-S Vul South deals
>
> 742
> KT832
> ---
> AJ652
> --- KQT65
> AJ964 Q5
> 984 KQJ653
> K9874 ---
> AJ983
> 7
> AT72
> QT3
>
> Auction Unknown. East is declarer at 4D (undoubled!)
>
> East has 5000+ masterpoints; N-S are both "C" players.
>
> I am called to the table for a revoke. At trick 5, declarer was in
> dummy and led a diamond, the first time the suit was played. North, of
> course showed out, declarer played low, and South discarded a spade(!)
>
> Several tricks later, I was called to the table because of the
> established revoke. I made the routine ruling of a one trick transfer
> at the end of the hand. (I could see that South would take a trick
> with the DA.)
>
> East protested, saying that the revoke "screwed up the whole hand",
> and that he should be entitled to more than the one trick penalty
> because he would have played the hand differently if he thought South
> could have a trump.
>
> I was unaware that North had showed out, and I took East at his word.
> But I informed him that I would not award him another trick based on a
> vague hypothetical, and that he would have to demonstrate actual
> damage that exceeded the trick he was already awarded.
>
> So, we proceeded to review the play starting with trick six. Much back-
> and-forth from East about what he might have done differently. When we
> got to trick ten or so, East stood up, declaring in a loud voice "I
> quit!" I actually thought he was going to leave the building, but he
> just went to the next table, muttering under his breath, apparently
> abandoning his assertion that he deserved another trick. My guess is
> that he realized that he had no case. The entire episode took 5 or 6
> minutes. It was only after that that I realized that both opponents
> must have showed out at trick 5.
>
> It was only afterward that I looked at the entire deal to make sure
> that the one trick ruling was correct. When I realized that both North
> and South must have showed out on the first round of diamonds, I also

> realized that East was less than honest in his assertion that he

> thought South was out of diamonds. He knew full well that at least one

> opponent had revoked. It just didn't occur to me that all four players
> might omit the relevant detail that both North and South had showed
> out on the first round of the suit.
>
> The upshot was that we wasted a lot of time, and arguably East was at
> fault for that, because his claim of additional damage was arguably
> frivolous. (Maybe I should have issued a PP?)
>
> But the question for directors everywhere is this: How should a
> director handle such a problem? It is time-consuming to go through the
> play trick-by-trick, and unless this is done on the spot, there is no
> way to decide the issue fairly. Bridge, after all, is a timed event,
> and it is arguably unfair to the rest of the field to delay the
> progress of the game by several minutes because one contestant might
> think he has a legitimate issue with a revoke ruling.

>
> Second question: Am I unreasonable in thinking that this is a good
> opportunity for active ethics? Why would an expert player not prod
> them when he knows for a fact that somebody has revoked?

I think that it is pertinent that L61B1 gives declarer unlimit=ed
power to ask a defender that did not follow suit if he has a card in
the suit:

61B1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit
whether he has a card of the suit led.

Notice that the effect of a ‘yes’ by the defender is that he must
produce the card as provided by L49 whereby it becomes a PC.

The point is that dclarer is thereby empowered by law to interrupt the
hand thereafter even when the time for
preventing a revoke’s establishment has passed.

Yet, it does seem impertinent for declarer to call for a ruling in the
middle of a hand that can’t be delivered until after the play is
complete, but that is what the law provides However, upon reflection,
because declarer can force a player that didn’t follow suit to have a
PC if he still has a card, it is not impertinent at all, it’s an
effective strategy.

In this case what ought to have happened was for the TD to instruct,
upon learning of the accusation of an established revoke, the players
to maintain their discards in order and call him back after the hand
to sort it out- explaining that there is nothing to be done until that
time.


regards
axman

[Nick France]

On Feb 14, 11:59 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> Fred. wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> >On the surface East's claims looks empty and,
> >perhaps, somewhat deceptive.  Unless East is
> >a 5000 masterpoint walrus who cannot count
> >trump, East knows there is a revoke.
>
> >However, East does not know who is revoking,
> >North, South or, remotely, both, and, so, does
> >not know the division of the diamonds.
>
> >So, the question is, assuming that the diamond
> >distribution really is rrelevent to the outcome,
> >just how much of the responsibility for East's
> >ignorance rests on East's own decision not
> >to call attention to the irregularity and how
> >much rests on the irregularity itself.
>
> >Does anyone think they have a clear answer out
> >of the laws?
>
>    Calling attention to a revoke when it happens is to the disadvantage
> of declarer's side, so cannot be criticised.
>
> --
> David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways

> Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl:+44 7778 409 955begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel:+44 151 677 7412begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Legally this may be so but this is a major problem with our game
today. We have too many lawyers playing the game. One may act
legally and still be subject to criticism. I think case is a good
example.

Nick France

[Dave Flower]

> > bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Legally this may be so but this is a major problem with our game
> today.  We have too many lawyers playing the game.  One may act
> legally and still be subject to criticism.  I think case is a good
> example.
>

> Nick France- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree - I know I would never have as a partner (or team member)
anyone who behaved like the declarer in question

Dave Flower

[Charles Brenner]

> > bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm-Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Legally this may be so but this is a major problem with our game
> today.  We have too many lawyers playing the game.

A game is a game. A reasonably logical and common view is that playing
strictly by the rules is a good way to avoid friction and hard
feelings, to be fair, and to be seen to be fair.

Personally I don't mind if my partner elects to avoid an established
revoke especially against a weak opponent, and I might myself. Michael
Rosenberg has a personal policy on the matter -- even against top
competition he (generally? except against Meckstroth?) declines revoke
penalties.

But he absolutely does not crime others for choosing to accept revoke
penalties according to the rules. Obviously not, for he is a fair
person who is smart and thoughtful enough to know how bad such an
attitude would be. For my money, a worse problem than "lawyers" who
argue for the letter of the law is those who claim authority of
unwritten laws and criticize other people who don't buy into their
impossible, vague, and unknown standard.

Charles

[David Stevenson]

Nick France wrote

You mean declarer does something perfectly normal and you criticise
him? Yes, maybe there are too many critics around. You being more
tolerant would be a good start.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[GilesH]

Wait until a defender plays to the following trick and then ask both
players if they have a diamond ?
I think it's too late, they can decline to tell, and it certainly
isn't a penalty card. But interesting ...

[Mark Brader]

Charles Brenner and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>>>> First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
>>>>> thought South void in diamonds.... Anyway, never mind whether
>>>>> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
>>>>> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
>>>>> *possibility* that South was void.

>>>> Only after he decided to play on without calling attention

>>>> [immediately] to the revoke.

>>> ...what is the relevance?

>> If the revoke is corrected, he knows where the void is and (in that
>> respect) no longer has to base his play on a possibility.

> True, but so what? Are you just making a whimsical comment, or is it
> in some way intended to rebut my argument?

It rebuts the "substantive point". He didn't have to play on on that
basis unless he decided to.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I seem to have become a signature quote."
m...@vex.net -- David Keldsen

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 14, 12:10 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Charles Brenner and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> >>>>> First, it's not 100% that East was dishonest in asserting that he
> >>>>> thought South void in diamonds....  Anyway, never mind whether
> >>>>> East could legitimately claim to be "certain"; the substantive
> >>>>> point is that East had to base his subsequent play on the
> >>>>> *possibility* that South was void.
> >>>> Only after he decided to play on without calling attention
> >>>> [immediately] to the revoke.
> >>> ...what is the relevance?
> >> If the revoke is corrected, he knows where the void is and (in that
> >> respect) no longer has to base his play on a possibility.
> > True, but so what? Are you just making a whimsical comment, or is it
> > in some way intended to rebut my argument?
>
> It rebuts the "substantive point".  He didn't have to play on on that
> basis unless he decided to.

Sounds whimsical to me. You could as well point out that he'd never
have had the problem if he hadn't shown up to play bridge that night.

In fact, he took the perfectly normal and unexceptionable course of
letting the revoke trick pass unremarked, thus allowing the revoke to
become established. That done, he was in the position I described in
which he had to consider the possibility that South was void. It's
from that perspective that I used the phrase "had to consider". I
don't think there is a case -- and certainly you haven't made one --
that East did anything wrong in getting into that situation of
ambiguity after the revoke trick. Even if East were such an impossibly
quick thinker that he realizes in the heat of the moment of the revoke
trick the unusual ambiguity that is going to ensue, he wouldn't
thereby incur any obligation to sacrifice the advantage of a revoke
penalty by speaking up. That would be absurd.

Charles

[Fred.]

While I was inclined to be a little doubtful about
East's claim it certainly wasn't my intention to
criticise East's decision not to call attention to
the revoke.

But, criticisizing the legality or ethics of a
decision is not the same thing as holding the
decision maker responsible for the consequences.

In deciding not to call attention to the revoke
East also chose to remain ignorant of the
distribution. It would not be altogether
unreasonable to hold East responsible for East's
own ignorance since East had a lawful action
which would have prevented it. What, if any,
if the bridge law freeing East of this
responsibility?

Fred.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-02-14 10:40 AM, Fred. wrote:
> So, the question is, assuming that the diamond
> distribution really is rrelevent to the outcome,
> just how much of the responsibility for East's
> ignorance rests on East's own decision not
> to call attention to the irregularity and how
> much rests on the irregularity itself.
>
> Does anyone think they have a clear answer out
> of the laws?

The answer out of the laws is Law 64C: the non-offending side (NOS)
should not do worse because of a revoke. What this means in practice is
that the Director should work out how the play would have gone if the
revoke hadn't occurred and then make sure the NOS gets at least that
score. If there is doubt about how the play would go absent the revoke,
there are rules for handling that (L12C1). If the revoke penalty lets
the NOS do better, they keep the bonus. The NOS has no obligation to
call attention to the revoke at any specific time, and L64C always
protects the NOS from damage from the revoke. (It does not, however,
guarantee they will actually benefit.)

Where East might have gone wrong -- it wasn't entirely clear from the OP
-- was taking an argumentative attitude towards the Director. That
deserves a stern warning or perhaps a DP if it actually occurred. Of
course it didn't help that the Director didn't seem to know how to
handle the problem. As David (I think it was) wrote, judgment rulings
should be given only after due consideration, including consultation if
at all possible. They should never be given immediately at the table.

One _example_ of a proper procedure might be as follows:

South revokes (of course this step is NOT proper).

East notices someone has revoked but says nothing.

The revoke becomes established.

Some time later, not necessarily immediately, East calls the Director.
The Director ascertains the facts and rules on the mechanical
rectification (finish the deal, transfer one trick). Director also
advises the players that if damage exceeds the one trick, there will be
an adjusted score.

East says something to the effect of "I am not sure one trick is enough
to compensate for the damage; could you please check?"

Director says he will check and tells players to resume play.
(Actually, the Director really should check for extra damage even
without having been asked, but I bet most ACBL Directors don't.)

Director goes away, examines the hand record, consults, eventually
advises both sides of his ruling. "Eventually" may be at the end of the
session. If ruling seems doubtful, advises both sides of their right to
appeal. Handles appeal if necessary.

As I say, the above is only an example; there are proper alternatives to
some of the steps. And I hope I haven't left out anything important.
But arguing at the table or delaying the movement are never proper.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Charles Brenner]

On Feb 14, 3:51 pm, "Fred." <ghrno-goo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:59:19 AM UTC-5, David Stevenson wrote:
> > Fred. wrote
> > >On the surface East's claims looks empty and,
> > >perhaps, somewhat deceptive.  Unless East is
> > >a 5000 masterpoint walrus who cannot count
> > >trump, East knows there is a revoke.
>
> > >However, East does not know who is revoking,
> > >North, South or, remotely, both, and, so, does
> > >not know the division of the diamonds.
>
> > >So, the question is, assuming that the diamond
> > >distribution really is rrelevent to the outcome,
> > >just how much of the responsibility for East's
> > >ignorance rests on East's own decision not
> > >to call attention to the irregularity and how
> > >much rests on the irregularity itself.
>
> > >Does anyone think they have a clear answer out
> > >of the laws?
>
> >    Calling attention to a revoke when it happens is to the disadvantage
> > of declarer's side, so cannot be criticised.
>
> > --
> > David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways
> > Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

> > <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel: +44 151 677 7412

> > bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>
> While I was inclined to be a little doubtful about
> East's claim it certainly wasn't my intention to
> criticise East's decision not to call attention to
> the revoke.
>
> But, criticisizing the legality or ethics of a
> decision is not the same thing as holding the
> decision maker responsible for the consequences.
>
> In deciding not to call attention to the revoke
> East also chose to remain ignorant of the
> distribution.  It would not be altogether
> unreasonable to hold East responsible for East's
> own ignorance since East had a lawful action
> which would have prevented it.  What, if any,
> if the bridge law freeing East of this
> responsibility?

If by "holding East responsible" you mean that East, having helped
himself by silently letting the revoke become established, would then
be denied the benefit of some other law such as 64C (director
discretion to restore equity if the revoke penalty is deemed
insufficient), then it's whatever that law is (such as 64C) which
frees East of this responsibility. If the course of events is such
that by the bridge laws East is entitled to benefit under two of them,
so be it. I don't see any justification in bridge law or fairness for
the director to "deem" only one to a customer.

Charles

[Nick France]

On Feb 14, 2:26 pm, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:14 am, Nick France <gandal...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 11:59 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Fred. wrote
>
> > > >On the surface East's claims looks empty and,
> > > >perhaps, somewhat deceptive.  Unless East is
> > > >a 5000 masterpoint walrus who cannot count
> > > >trump, East knows there is a revoke.
>
> > > >However, East does not know who is revoking,
> > > >North, South or, remotely, both, and, so, does
> > > >not know the division of the diamonds.
>
> > > >So, the question is, assuming that the diamond
> > > >distribution really is rrelevent to the outcome,
> > > >just how much of the responsibility for East's
> > > >ignorance rests on East's own decision not
> > > >to call attention to the irregularity and how
> > > >much rests on the irregularity itself.
>
> > > >Does anyone think they have a clear answer out
> > > >of the laws?
>
> > >    Calling attention to a revoke when it happens is to the disadvantage
> > > of declarer's side, so cannot be criticised.
>
> > > --
> > > David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways

> > > Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl:+44 7778 409 955begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955      end_of_the_skype_highlightingbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955      end_of_the_skype_highlighting      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> > > <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel:+44 151 677 7412begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412      end_of_the_skype_highlightingbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412      end_of_the_skype_highlighting      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> > > bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm-Hidequoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Legally this may be so but this is a major problem with our game
> > today.  We have too many lawyers playing the game.
>
> A game is a game. A reasonably logical and common view is that playing
> strictly by the rules is a good way to avoid friction and hard
> feelings, to be fair, and to be seen to be fair.
>
> Personally I don't mind if my partner elects to avoid an established
> revoke especially against a weak opponent, and I might myself. Michael
> Rosenberg has a personal policy on the matter -- even against top
> competition he (generally? except against Meckstroth?) declines revoke
> penalties.
>
> But he absolutely does not crime others for choosing to accept revoke
> penalties according to the rules. Obviously not, for he is a fair
> person who is smart and thoughtful enough to know how bad such an
> attitude would be. For my money, a worse problem than "lawyers" who
> argue for the letter of the law is those who claim authority of
> unwritten laws and criticize other people who don't buy into their
> impossible, vague, and unknown standard.
>

> Charles- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I learned from following Zia but then he partner Rosenberg.

Nick France

[Nick France]

On Feb 14, 2:38 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> >> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm-Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Legally this may be so but this is a major problem with our game
> >today.  We have too many lawyers playing the game.  One may act
> >legally and still be subject to criticism.  I think case is a good
> >example.
>
>    You mean declarer does something perfectly normal and you criticise
> him?  Yes, maybe there are too many critics around.  You being more
> tolerant would be a good start.
>
> --
> David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl:+44 7778 409 955begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 7778 409 955      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel:+44 151 677 7412begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +44 151 677 7412      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

tolerent of what? The declarer made a mistake in going over the hand
immediately but I really am not complaining about him. My comments
are for East.

Nick France

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Nick France skrev:

> tolerent of what? The declarer made a mistake in going over
> the hand immediately but I really am not complaining about
> him. My comments are for East.

East was declarer.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Steve Willner skrev:

> Director goes away, examines the hand record, consults, eventually
> advises both sides of his ruling. "Eventually" may be at the end of the
> session. If ruling seems doubtful, advises both sides of their right to
> appeal.

*Always* inform players of their right to an appeal.

[axm...@hotmail.com]

I looked for such a provision and did not find it- quote please.

regards
axman

[Nick France]

On Feb 15, 7:24 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

I meant to say director made a mistake in going over the hand
immediately.

Nick France

[Dave Flower]

Declarer's actions may have been within the letter of the Laws, but I
do not believe that they were within the spirit of the Laws.

I can think of no other situation where, if the NOS are aware of a
transgression, and allow play to continue, there is any penalty. I
suspect that this scenario was not considered when the Laws were
written.

Dave Flower

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Dave Flower skrev:

> Declarer's actions may have been within the letter of the Laws,

I don't believe that.

> I suspect that this scenario was not considered when the Laws
> were written.

You seemingly have no idea how much the laws have been discussed
in pedantic detail over and over again in several groups before
they are committed to paper - not only in the English speaking
country where the primary ones are written, but also in all the
countries that later have to translate them.

I have only found one example where I seriously believe that
people didn't really give it enough thought, and that is the
definition of "play period", a problem that I was made aware of
in this newsgroup. The definition conflicts with dummy's obvious
rights.

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

>Declarer's actions may have been within the letter of the Laws, but I
>do not believe that they were within the spirit of the Laws.
>
>I can think of no other situation where, if the NOS are aware of a
>transgression, and allow play to continue, there is any penalty. I
>suspect that this scenario was not considered when the Laws were
>written.

Be serious. This Law has been unchanged in principle for fifty years
you reckon no law-maker has ever considered whether allowing people not
to point out revokes is fair?

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[David Stevenson]

Charles Brenner wrote

>If by "holding East responsible" you mean that East, having helped
>himself by silently letting the revoke become established, would then
>be denied the benefit of some other law such as 64C (director
>discretion to restore equity if the revoke penalty is deemed
>insufficient), then it's whatever that law is (such as 64C) which
>frees East of this responsibility. If the course of events is such
>that by the bridge laws East is entitled to benefit under two of them,
>so be it. I don't see any justification in bridge law or fairness for
>the director to "deem" only one to a customer.

I could not have put my feelings in the matter any better than this.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412