[Hanoi5]

A revoke where the revoker wins the revoking trick and his side at least one more trick after it grants a two-trick penalty. Is this always correct? Doesn't it add an abnormal element to some hands?

For example, today I was playing 5♦x and at one point LHO played a club, which I ruffed and then drew the last trumps. I held 3 winning clubs so my revoke didn't have any effect on the result, is it correct to have a two-trick penalty?

[bluejak]

Of course revokes create abnormal elements. Following suit is the only normal way to play hands.

The revoke Laws include some penalties that restore equity and some penalties that are pure penalties. Very fair, otherwise everyone will revoke the whole time.

[blackshoe]

If your opponent had been the one to revoke, would you be asking the question?

It's certainly correct to follow the laws, either in following suit, or in paying (or, for the TD, assessing) a revoke penalty. It would be incorrect to do anything else.

[Free]

It's not always correct. If you gain much more by revoking, equity is restored by punishing you more severely. Plus, it might be considered an attempt to cheat.

[mycroft]

1. Yes, unless one of the many exceptions apply (which is rare). Please note: "you win the revoke trick" does not mean "your side wins the revoke trick", neither partner nor dummy can trigger a two-trick penalty on your revoke alone.
2. Yes, it does, and no, it's not fair; it's not intended to be. Follow suit next time, and remember, it used to be worse.

"but it didn't matter"? No, following suit is one of the fundamentals of this game. Failing to do so, even in irrelevant cases, matters. We punish you (occasionally) to make it clear that it matters.

[blackshoe]

Free, on 2011-April-20, 07:51, said:

It's not always correct. If you gain much more by revoking, equity is restored by punishing you more severely. Plus, it might be considered an attempt to cheat.

"I made a mistake, and did something I'm not supposed to do. Now not only should I not have to redress the damage I did to my opponents, but if I am required to do so, that is 'punishment'". Or

"I made a mistake, and did something I'm not supposed to do. Now I'm to be punished (by the revoke penalty), but if the punishment isn't sufficient to repair the damage I did, I have to be punished even more? Waahhh! No fair!"

Pfui. Redress is one thing, punishment is something else entirely.

Personally, I think if someone revokes, and this damages the NOS, the damage should be repaired via score adjustment, and then the revoke penalty should be applied. If no damage, then fine, no score adjustment, but still the penalty.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-24, 16:14, said:

Personally, I think if someone revokes, and this damages the NOS, the damage should be repaired via score adjustment, and then the revoke penalty should be applied. If no damage, then fine, no score adjustment, but still the penalty.

A possible problem with blackshoe's suggestion is that there is little incentive for an undamaged NOS to call the director. Then law-enforement may rely on either

• A passing director noticing what has happened or
• The OS drawing attention to their own infraction and calling the director themselves.

[barmar]

Since the NOS has nothing to lose, and can usually gain, by calling the TD, they always have incentive to call when an established revoke is discovered.