[keledor]

Contract is 4H by East

---

North leads a Spade , East ruffs (revokes), South follows and Dummy plays the Diamond.

Now East plays the last spade and the revoke is revealed.

You can't revoke at trick 12 so East replaces the trump with the spade.

Now can Declarer change dummy's card to a trump which is the only logical play?
What law applies here?

I was actually South here and the director ruled that Dummy couldn't change card so we benefited.

However if Declarer should be allowed the trick I'll get the score adjusted to them!

Regards

Steve

[iviehoff]

L62C2. "After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D." Since in this case South (non-offender) does not change his card, dummy (offending side) may not. No grounds for an adjustment either.

[RMB1]

This apppears to be an application of Law 62C, in particular Law 62C2.

Quote

After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the player of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw his played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender, and see Law 16D.

The non-offender (South) had not withdrawn a card as he must still play ♠8. So there is no opportunity for the offending side to withdraw the card played from dummy. Trick 12 stands with neither declarer or dummy ruffing.

[ i.e. what iviehoff said.]

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2011-June-22, 02:07

[blackshoe]

keledor, on 2011-June-22, 01:24, said:

You can't revoke at trick 12 so East replaces the trump with the spade.
Steve

Actually, that's a myth. You can revoke at trick twelve, but there's no tricks transferred in rectification. The applicable law is

Quote

64B6: There is no rectification as in A above if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick.

Such a revoke must be corrected, even if established, if discovered before all four hands are returned to the board (Law 62D). However, it's still a revoke.

[jh51]

keledor, on 2011-June-22, 01:24, said:

Contract is 4H by East

---

North leads a Spade , East ruffs (revokes), South follows and Dummy plays the Diamond.

Which spade? If the 2, the question is moot.

[mycroft]

Let's quote Law 62D:

Quote

• On the twelfth trick, a revoke, even if established, must be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board.
• If a revoke by a defender occurs on the twelfth trick and before it was the turn of his partner to play to the trick, when offenders partner has cards of two suits he may not choose the play that could possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card.

So nothing about declarer changing a card. So, as above, Law 62C2, and the spade K wins (assuming, of course, that it was the one played).

I've never really understood what was special about Trick 12 anyway - I, and I'm guessing most players, wouldn't care (or would approve) if L62D , the parenthetical comment in L63B, and L64B6 just disappeared.

[barmar]

What's special about trick 12 is that at this point there's only two possible orders that you can play the remaining cards: the valid order and the revoke order. Rather than try to figure out what would have happened had the revoke not occurred, we simply roll it back and swap the order.

[axman]

barmar, on 2011-June-26, 21:44, said:

What's special about trick 12 is that at this point there's only two possible orders that you can play the remaining cards: the valid order and the revoke order. Rather than try to figure out what would have happened had the revoke not occurred, we simply roll it back and swap the order.

Some might have reason to believe that the above is patently false once it is realized that there are as many as 4 different orders that the remaining 6 <sic> cards might be played.

[iviehoff]

What is special about a trick 12 revoke, is that it would not become established - according to the standard rubric on when a revoke becomes established - until a point at which there is no discretion on the remaining cards to be played. So the point at which a trick 12 revoke becomes established, according to that standard rubric, is logically equivalent to the end of the hand. So we may as well say it never becomes established. That is why L62C, the same law on correcting other unestablished revokes, turns out to be adequate in telling us what to do when correcting a trick 12 revoke.
Edited for clarity

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2011-June-27, 06:29

[mycroft]

Yes, except that we have to add that crazy L62D2 to deal with the case where it doesn't work out quite the same. As if our revoke laws aren't confusing enough as it is.

[iviehoff]

mycroft, on 2011-June-27, 13:11, said:

Yes, except that we have to add that crazy L62D2 to deal with the case where it doesn't work out quite the same. As if our revoke laws aren't confusing enough as it is.

L62D2 doesn't actually say anything that wasn't already true. The revoke card for a corrected revoke is a major penalty card. Sight of penalty card is UI to partner. That is all that 62D2 reminds us of. We wouldn't usually bother making the last card in your hand a penalty card because all the other rectifications and restraints that apply to penalty cards are now nugatory, aside from sight of it being UI.

[mycroft]

Yes, but if it's treated as an established revoke, rather than a judgement call, it's easier (because this tends to be a very contentious judgement call). If we could just point to "your side played to trick 13, trick penalty or equity" rather than "you revoked on trick 12, we have to correct it, and now we have to worry about people playing the card that is "known to be right" rather than the one that might have been played if...", it would in my opinion be much less contentious.

And for TDs that are (as the common belief has it, as I've been reminded in the last month) much less competent players than the ones playing ("those that can, do. those that can't, teach. those that can't teach, go into administration") - "established revoke, penalty" is much easier to deal with than "well, I would always [get it right] because of [bridge logic that might be right, might be ex post facto, might be expert trying to snow the TD, could very easily be a combination of all three]."

[iviehoff]

mycroft, on 2011-July-07, 14:25, said:

"established revoke, penalty" is much easier to deal with than "well, I would always [get it right] because of [bridge logic that might be right, might be ex post facto, might be expert trying to snow the TD, could very easily be a combination of all three]."

Indeed. But claims for damage on the basis of abuse of UI on sight of a penalty card are as rare as rocking horse dung.

[mycroft]

And all of the ones I've seen personally or heard of...were in this situation. Sure, 2 or 3 of them. But still.