[jallerton]

Playing in a charity event the other day, I was defending 3NT. Declarer had ♣J54 in hand opposite ♣AKQ3 in dummy with the suit breaking 3-3. The first round of clubs went ♣4,♣6,♣A,♣2 and when next in hand declarer led ♣J,♣8,♣3,♦8. He then led ♣5,♣10,♣K,♣7.

The revoke had now become established. Declarer and I both realised that my partner had revoked, although no-one made any comment about it at the time. Two questions arise for the subsequent defence.

1. Was the fact that partner had played ♦8 authorised information to me?
2. We had agreed to play "high = encouraging" as our discard system and ♦8 did not look as though it had been her lowest diamond. Was the fact that partner had signalled for diamonds authorised information to me?

[dburn]

jallerton, on 2011-February-26, 16:25, said:

Playing in a charity event the other day, I was defending 3NT. Declarer had ♣J54 in hand opposite ♣AKQ3 in dummy with the suit breaking 3-3. The first round of clubs went ♣4,♣6,♣A,♣2 and when next in hand declarer led ♣J,♣8,♣3,♦8. He then led ♣5,♣10,♣K,♣7.

The revoke had now become established. Declarer and I both realised that my partner had revoked, although no-one made any comment about it at the time. Two questions arise for the subsequent defence.

1. Was the fact that partner had played ♦8 authorised information to me?
2. We had agreed to play "high = encouraging" as our discard system and ♦8 did not look as though it had been her lowest diamond. Was the fact that partner had signalled for diamonds authorised information to me?

Very good question. One's first instinct would be to say "no, and no" because information is authorised only if "it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board" [Law 16A1a], and a revoke is not a legal play. But that Law continues "(including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)" - ridiculously, for legal plays cannot include illegal plays, but no one expects anyone to have proof-read the Laws before publishing them - and one might say that a revoke has been "accepted" once it becomes established. After all, one could not say of it that it had been rejected, and one must say something.

Not that it would matter very much in practice, because if a Director considered that your side had gained an advantage from your knowing prematurely that your partner had ♦8 and had chosen to play it, he would follow Law 64C and adjust the score anyway. Still, such considerations might escape less capable Directors I suppose.

[AlexJonson]

dburn, on 2011-February-26, 18:25, said:

Very good question. One's first instinct would be to say "no, and no" because information is authorised only if "it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board" [Law 16A1a], and a revoke is not a legal play. But that Law continues "(including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)" - ridiculously, for legal plays cannot include illegal plays, but no one expects anyone to have proof-read the Laws before publishing them - and one might say that a revoke has been "accepted" once it becomes established. After all, one could not say of it that it had been rejected, and one must say something.

Not that it would matter very much in practice, because if a Director considered that your side had gained an advantage from your knowing prematurely that your partner had ♦8 and had chosen to play it, he would follow Law 64C and adjust the score anyway. Still, such considerations might escape less capable Directors I suppose.

I think the instinctive 'no and no' was clearly correct.

An established revoke is not (IMO)an illegal play accepted: I struggle to see how it could be such. The logic that it has to be something more than a revoke escapes me.

So I would say the illegal discard (if it means something) is UI.

[alphatango]

I'm not sure it's quite so clear -- maybe I'll try and make a case for a different answer and see if that clears up my thought process.

Working backwards, it seems obvious to me that the information that there has been an established revoke must be authorised (hence, for example, you're allowed to "play for two off" on the basis that your side will end up being penalised a trick). From where does that information come? First, from the cards that were played, including the D8; second, from the knowledge of the laws (AI by 16A1c).

Specifically, 63B tells us that an established revoke can't be corrected, and "the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played". So knowledge of the revoke laws ==> knowing that the D8 was played to the revoke trick that will stand. (Maybe.) Then I would answer "yes" to the first question.

The analogous case would be that where partner has a penalty card -- knowledge that partner holds the card is UI, but knowledge that partner must play the card is AI. Here, the knowledge that the D8 has appeared is AI, so you are allowed to know your D7 is good when you subsequently see the DAKQJT9, and the fact of the established revoke, and so on. Perhaps also analogously, the knowledge that partner wanted to discard that card (whatever carding you play) would be UI, so the answer to the second question is "no". (Also maybe.)

It feels like it gets a bit messy from here though -- when partner subsequently pitches a low diamond (on another suit, presumably), showing, say, count, what AI and UI do you have about their preference/length in diamonds? (Surely one cannot argue that the low diamond is UI, but are you then required to (choose from amongst LAs, etc.) play for partner to be discouraging diamonds?) I agree with dburn that 64C will cover the non-offending side, of course.

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-February-26, 18:25, said:

Not that it would matter very much in practice, because if a Director considered that your side had gained an advantage from your knowing prematurely that your partner had ♦8 and had chosen to play it, he would follow Law 64C and adjust the score anyway. Still, such considerations might escape less capable Directors I suppose.

I think it could matter. As I understand it, the effect of Law 64C is to restore "equity" as if the revoke had not occurred. Here we could have a situation where:

(i) because of the established revoke, one trick is destined to be transferred to declarer at the end of the hand; and

(ii) if I am allowed to use the information about ♦8, I might be able to find an otherwise unlikely defence gaining one trick for my side.

In this scenario, there would be no net gain for the defenders from the revoke, so Law 64C would not apply.

There is also the theoretical possibility that no-one will draw attention to the revoke.

[campboy]

I agree with dburn's reasoning (and his suggestion that the wording of the law needs some work).

The idea that the meaning of the discard is unauthorised would also have some unfortunate consequences, namely that any discard partner makes might be UI, and you can't tell. Here Jeffrey was aware that there had been a revoke, but he might not have been and there is no logical reason why that should affect whether it is AI or UI.

[iviehoff]

You feel unhappy about using the revoke card as a signal, but would you feel unhappy about using it to count the hand. If we try and assume you have to pretend it wasn't the D8, then things start getting ridiculous. What if you had been playing a trump contract and your partner had ruffed and won the trick? Are you not allowed to know you won the trick? Must you inconsistently believe you won the trick with a losing club? If you must assume it was a club (even in NT), which one? What happens when the club you have to assume was already played is actually played? Do you assume that one was the D8?

What your partner played to an established revoke has to be AI, and that is what "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted" is intended to make AI, even if we don't think the wording quite works. This is not a problem, because if you have made a profit after the automatic revoke penalty, you will be adjusted against. In general, you are allowed to play bridge after an established revoke and do your best to mitigate the automatic revoke penalty.

[bluejak]

If you were not allowed to use the information from a revoke card because it is an illegal play, how about in the vast majority of cases where partner revokes and you do not know it is a revoke?

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2011-February-28, 03:18, said:

What your partner played to an established revoke has to be AI, and that is what "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted" is intended to make AI, even if we don't think the wording quite works.

Surely "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted" refers to insufficient bids, calls out of turn, and leads and plays out of turn. In these cases the non-offending side is given the option in the Laws of "accepting" the illegal calls and plays. In the revoke case, no-one has accepted the illegal play; it is just deemed by the Law to be too late to correct.

I understand where people are coming from when they say that the rest of the play would become too difficult if the illegal play were treated to be UI, and I would agree with them if I had asked this question on the "Changing Laws" forum. However, I've not yet been convinced that this is what the current Laws actually say or imply.

bluejak, on 2011-February-28, 18:31, said:

If you were not allowed to use the information from a revoke card because it is an illegal play, how about in the vast majority of cases where partner revokes and you do not know it is a revoke?

If you were not allowed to use this information but did not realise it to be unauthorised, then your actions could not be criticised and you would certainly escape procedural penalties for "use" of the UI. However, when it was discovered that the information had been unauthorised, then presumably the TD would be entilted to adjust the score.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-March-01, 14:02, said:

Surely "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted" refers to insufficient bids, calls out of turn, and leads and plays out of turn. In these cases the non-offending side is given the option in the Laws of "accepting" the illegal calls and plays. In the revoke case, no-one has accepted the illegal play; it is just deemed by the Law to be too late to correct.

I understand where people are coming from when they say that the rest of the play would become too difficult if the illegal play were treated to be UI, and I would agree with them if I had asked this question on the "Changing Laws" forum. However, I've not yet been convinced that this is what the current Laws actually say or imply.



If you were not allowed to use this information but did not realise it to be unauthorised, then your actions could not be criticised and you would certainly escape procedural penalties for "use" of the UI. However, when it was discovered that the information had been unauthorised, then presumably the TD would be entilted to adjust the score.

Here I agree completely with bluejak; we cannot have an auction with all calls apparently having been legal and therefore AI to all players, only to discover at some time that there has been a revoke resulting in one (or maybe even more) call(s) suddenly becoming illegal and therefore UI according to Law 16A1a.

But are we not forgetting Law 64C?

If TD subsequently judges that a player has "used" information derived from a play that constituted a revoke and as a consequence NOS has been damaged beyond what is rectified under Law 64A then he is responsible for awarding an adjusted score compensating this damage.

There is no reason to bring in Law 16 with PP possibly being imposed in this process.

[campboy]

I think it has been accepted in the normal sense of the word: all four players accept that it has been played to that trick.