[123600]

A renag occured third last trick by declarer playing a trump on lead from board.Picked up later and remaining play from that point fwd. was reconstructed and determined that defenders would not have got a trick in any event. No penalty was applied. Is this correct?

[blackshoe]

If I understand you correctly, on trick 11, declarer led a side suit from dummy, and trumped in his hand, when he still had a card of the side suit. This was discovered "later", presumably sometime after declarer led to trick 12. If my understanding is correct, then the answer to your question is "no". One trick should have been transferred to the defenders (Law 64A2).

The laws don't use the term "renege", although the rules of other games do, and people extend the usage to bridge. The term used in the laws of bridge is "revoke".

From the movie "The Gauntlet":

<Ben Shockley has just been shot>
Gus Malley (Sondra Locke): "Don't you die on me, Ben Shockley!" <Pounds him on the chest>
Ben Shockley (Clint Eastwood): <Opening eyes> "Nag, nag, nag."

[campboy]

When was the revoke discovered? If it was before declarer played to the next trick, it should have been corrected immediately. If it was after this, but before the end of the round and before either opponent had called on the next board, then two tricks should be transferred (since declarer won the trick he revoked on). If it was later still, there should be no penalty; the director could still adjust the score if defence were damaged, but it seems they weren't.

[blackshoe]

Meh. Campboy is right, if declarer won the revoke trick, and defenders didn't win another trick, the penalty is two tricks (64A1 applies, not 64A2). Guess I need to read more carefully.

[barmar]

I think the gist of the original question was "Can the revoke penalty be waived if the NOS was not actually damaged (they would have taken the same number of tricks without the revoke)?" The answer is "no".

There's a law that says that if the penalty is not severe enough, the TD can adjust. But there's no law that says he can adjust if they're too severe. Although the penalties in the Laws are primarily intended to restore equity, this is a case where they also may punish as a deterrent.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-April-18, 21:09, said:

There's a law that says that if the penalty is not severe enough, the TD can adjust.

Which law is that? 64C says that if the penalty does not redress all the damage, the score can be adjusted, but I don't think that means quite the same thing as "the penalty is not severe enough". Law 12B2 says "the director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side". So I'd think "penalty is not severe enough" falls under 12B2, and "damage not fully redressed" falls under 64C. IOW, I don't necessarily have a problem with adjusting the score after a revoke has been dealt with by Law 64A and B, but you have to adjust for the right reason.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2011-April-18, 21:09, said:

I think the gist of the original question was "Can the revoke penalty be waived if the NOS was not actually damaged (they would have taken the same number of tricks without the revoke)?" The answer is "no".

There's a law that says that if the penalty is not severe enough, the TD can adjust. But there's no law that says he can adjust if they're too severe. Although the penalties in the Laws are primarily intended to restore equity, this is a case where they also may punish as a deterrent.

Indeed. I was surprised in a recent county match when the offending side insisted they wanted to appeal a revoke ruling I had given. Only one trick had been transferred since the revoker did not win the revoke trick - her partner did. It turned out the OS wanted "equity" restored by removing the revoke penalty to give them the same number of tricks they would have got without the revoke. Fortunately their team captain disabused them of this idea before a formal appeal...

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2011-April-19, 02:28, said:

Indeed. I was surprised in a recent county match when the offending side insisted they wanted to appeal a revoke ruling I had given. Only one trick had been transferred since the revoker did not win the revoke trick - her partner did. It turned out the OS wanted "equity" restored by removing the revoke penalty to give them the same number of tricks they would have got without the revoke. ...

This seems increasingly common: much the same happened to me at a country congress. The offending declarer wanted to "question" my ruling of a one trick penalty, he had not gained a trick from the revoke and wanted equity.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-April-19, 08:36, said:

This seems increasingly common: much the same happened to me at a country congress. The offending declarer wanted to "question" my ruling of a one trick penalty, he had not gained a trick from the revoke and wanted equity.

I've had this too, but I've also had the reverse - those who have been given rectification wanting more, because it matched equity and they thought their opponents should have lost out for revoking.

[wyman]

Just to clarify. Declarer is playing 6S and has not lost a trick yet. Trumps are out. The end position is (in dummy):

Dummy: AK A v v
Declarer: QJ K v v

If declarer ruffs the heart ace and claims, what is the result?

If declarer claims and says "trumps are high, so I can crossruff the hand," what is the result?

[blackshoe]

The second case is easier: two tricks to the defense (one in each minor suit), the claim statement being faulty.

In the first case, the position at the time of the claim is

Dummy: AK - v v
Declarer: Q K v v

and declarer is in his hand. He has made no line of play statement, so all normal lines must be considered. It would be normal to lead the ♥K and pitch say a diamond. If he thinks he can crossruff, it would be normal to lead a minor suit card. I don't think it would be normal to lead the ♠Q, but it would have the same result as leading a minor. So worst for declarer is that he leads a minor (or the ♠Q) and loses two tricks. The claim established the revoke, declarer who revoked won the revoke trick and two subsequent tricks, so we transfer two tricks to the defense, and declarer is down 3.

[gordontd]

wyman, on 2011-April-19, 09:50, said:

Just to clarify. Declarer is playing 6S and has not lost a trick yet. Trumps are out. The end position is (in dummy):

Dummy: AK A v v
Declarer: QJ K v v

If declarer ruffs the heart ace and claims, what is the result?

If declarer claims and says "trumps are high, so I can crossruff the hand," what is the result?

I think I'm reading this differently to blackshoe.

Does v = void?

If so in the first case he's one off (declarer won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks).

In the second case he makes +1 because we don't allow illegal plays in claims.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2011-April-19, 14:25, said:

I think I'm reading this differently to blackshoe.

Does v = void?

If so in the first case he's one off (declarer won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks).

In the second case he makes +1 because we don't allow illegal plays in claims.

Ah! For some reason "void" didn't occur to me.

If those are voids, I agree with your rulings.

[wyman]

That's consistent with my reading of the laws, so thanks, yet somehow it seems unsatisfactory.

(and yes, I meant voids. Sorry for the mixup.)

[barmar]

wyman, on 2011-April-20, 07:59, said:

That's consistent with my reading of the laws, so thanks, yet somehow it seems unsatisfactory.

(and yes, I meant voids. Sorry for the mixup.)

For future reference, voids are usually represented as "-". But irrelevant spot cards are usually shown as "x". Given that "v" is neither, I thought it was more likely that it meant void.

Did blackshoe really think that declarer was claiming on 4 revokes?

[blackshoe]

Heh. No, that thought did not occur to me.

[bluejak]

I read them as voids and still did not understand the question.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-19, 02:28, said:

Law 12B2 says "the director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side". So I'd think "penalty is not severe enough" falls under 12B2, and "damage not fully redressed" falls under 64C. IOW, I don't necessarily have a problem with adjusting the score after a revoke has been dealt with by Law 64A and B, but you have to adjust for the right reason.

Law 12B2 effectively states that: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either:
a: unduly severe to OS.
b: unduly severe to NOS.
c: unduly advantageous to OS.
d: unduly advantageous to NOS.

Law 64C handles only the situation where non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law (i.e. Law 64) for the damage caused (i.e. by the revoke)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-April-23, 16:19, said:

Law 64C handles only the situation where non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law (i.e. Law 64) for the damage caused (i.e. by the revoke)

Of course.