[whereagles]

As title, as follows:

Play is over and players are about to put the cards back into their pockets.
Dummy calls attention that one of the defenders has revoked. This is confirmed by the players.

Is non-offending side entitled to redress?
Or does it always have to be declarer the one noticing the revoke, for its side to be entitled to redress?

Thx!!

[VixTD]

whereagles, on 2016-March-22, 06:04, said:

As title, as follows:

Play is over and players are about to put the cards back into their pockets.
Dummy calls attention that one of the defenders has revoked. This is confirmed by the players.

Is non-offending side entitled to redress?
Or does it always have to be declarer the one noticing the revoke, for its side to be entitled to redress?

Thx!!

Dummy's quite in order here; they waited until the play had concluded before drawing attention to an irregularity (law 42B3). They are still in time for a ruling on the revoke (law 64B4-5) and the director should apply law 64A and C.

[Gerardo]

Dummy ceases to be dummy when play ceases.

[blackshoe]

And since dummy isn't dummy any more, it wasn't dummy who called attention to the irregularity. :-)

[aguahombre]

Immediately after the last card has been played, it is best for "no-longer Dummy" to call for a freeze before people start picking up their cards to put them away. Call for TD while the tricks are in place so that the revoke can be more easily reconstructed.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2016-March-22, 23:48, said:

Immediately after the last card has been played, it is best for "no-longer Dummy" to call for a freeze before people start picking up their cards to put them away. Call for TD while the tricks are in place so that the revoke can be more easily reconstructed.

Yes, there are always some opponents who will claim that they don't remember the play of a hand that they just played.

[whereagles]

Thx guys. I was under the wrong impression but it cleared up now.

I was confused with L43.A2, but that only applies if dummy had lost its rights.

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2016-March-23, 04:15, said:

I was confused with L43.A2, but that only applies if dummy had lost its rights.

It does seem that if Dummy has committed a L43A2 violation, L43B3 restricts his rights after play has ceased and he is no-longer Dummy. The way it is worded, L12B1 can still be used for equity if the revoke caused damage; but the normal revoke penalty protocol doesn't apply if attention is first drawn by a "damaged" Dummy.

Perhaps someone will disagree with the way I read it.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-23, 03:07, said:

Yes, there are always some opponents who will claim that they don't remember the play of a hand that they just played.

And some of them, at least, will be telling the truth.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2016-March-23, 08:33, said:

It does seem that if Dummy has committed a L43A2 violation, L43B3 restricts his rights after play has ceased and he is no-longer Dummy. The way it is worded, L12B1 can still be used for equity if the revoke caused damage; but the normal revoke penalty protocol doesn't apply if attention is first drawn by a "damaged" Dummy.

Perhaps someone will disagree with the way I read it.

I will. Law 43B3 starts "when dummy…" Dummy exists only between the facing of the opening lead and the quitting of the last trick. Outside that interval, there is no dummy, and therefore no restrictions on the player who was dummy during the interval. If the lawmakers wanted your interpretation, they would have to explicitly say so.

[barmar]

Nothing in Law 43 says that its restrictions persist after the play is completed and the player is no longer dummy.

Dummy is never allowed to draw attention to an irregularity while the play is ongoing. Under normal circumstances, if dummy does this, the TD applies the normal rectification, but dummy is may be subject to a procedural penalty for violating dummy's restrictions. But if dummy has violated any of the limitations in 43A1, and then draws attention to an irregularity while play is ongoing, the irregularity is ignored.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-March-23, 09:49, said:

Nothing in Law 43 says that its restrictions persist after the play is completed and the player is no longer dummy.

Dummy is never allowed to draw attention to an irregularity while the play is ongoing. Under normal circumstances, if dummy does this, the TD applies the normal rectification, but dummy is may be subject to a procedural penalty for violating dummy's restrictions. But if dummy has violated any of the limitations in 43A1, and then draws attention to an irregularity while play is ongoing, the irregularity is ignored.

And just to avoid any misunderstanding: Once play is ended, dummy is no longer under any restrictions on dummy, not even restrictions on a dummy who has forfeited his rights.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-March-23, 09:49, said:

Nothing in Law 43 says that its restrictions persist after the play is completed and the player is no longer dummy.

Dummy is never allowed to draw attention to an irregularity while the play is ongoing. Under normal circumstances, if dummy does this, the TD applies the normal rectification, but dummy is may be subject to a procedural penalty for violating dummy's restrictions. But if dummy has violated any of the limitations in 43A1, and then draws attention to an irregularity while play is ongoing, the irregularity is ignored.

It is not within the purview of a director to ignore an irregularity of which he becomes aware within the Correction Period. He must apply the legal rectification. In this case, "there is no rectification", but at the end of play, if the defending side gained from the infraction, the director adjusts the score.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 10:12, said:

It is not within the purview of a director to ignore an irregularity of which he becomes aware within the Correction Period. He must apply the legal rectification. In this case, "there is no rectification", but at the end of play, if the defending side gained from the infraction, the director adjusts the score.

Then what's the point of that clause? Does it just mean we don't apply the automatic rectification (e.g. transfering N tricks because of a revoke, or the penalty card rules), but we still restore equity?

[blackshoe]

Not sure what you mean by "that clause", but I think the answer to your question is "yes". That's why 43B3 refers to 12B1.

[weejonnie]

Where in the laws does it state when dummy ceases to be dummy? The definition states when he becomes dummy (opening lead faced).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-24, 16:22, said:

Not sure what you mean by "that clause", but I think the answer to your question is "yes". That's why 43B3 refers to 12B1.

"that clause" is where it says "there is no rectification". I'm wondering what the point of removing rectification is if we're just going to adjust anyway. I thought the point of 43B is to be a strong deterrent to dummy violating any of the 43A restrictions, by severely curtailing his few rights, potentially even allowing the opponents to get away with infractions. I suppose I was wrong about this.

The reference to 12B1 is qualified by "at the end of play". I initially interpreted this as referring to when dummy calls attention to an irregularity, but I now see that it refers to when the TD takes action regarding the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-March-24, 17:46, said:

I'm wondering what the point of removing rectification is if we're just going to adjust anyway.

Well, we might not adjust. It depends on whether the criteria for adjustment are met, in particular whether there was damage to the declaring side. The point of "there is no rectification" is so that play can continue "as though no irregularity occurred".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 10:12, said:

It is not within the purview of a director to ignore an irregularity of which he becomes aware within the Correction Period. He must apply the legal rectification. In this case, "there is no rectification", but at the end of play, if the defending side gained from the infraction, the director adjusts the score.

barmar, on 2016-March-24, 16:16, said:

Then what's the point of that clause? Does it just mean we don't apply the automatic rectification (e.g. transfering N tricks because of a revoke, or the penalty card rules), but we still restore equity?

I experienced a nice example of this situation in my local club a week or so ago:
I was Dummy in a 3♣ contract, the opening lead was the ♥A followed by a low heart which was ruffed by RHO. When eventually three tricks remained to be played partner claimed for one down and all cards were returned to the board.

The printout of the results and all boards was published the next morning (on Internet) and at that time I discovered that RHO in fact had held two hearts originally, so his ruff was indeed a revoke.

It was obviously too late to claim the two trick revoke penalty for a 3♣+1 result, but as the legal correction period had still not expired we did receive the adjusted score for 3♣= which was an indisputable "equity" under Law 64C.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-March-25, 03:59, said:

I experienced a nice example of this situation in my local club a week or so ago:
I was Dummy in a 3♣ contract, the opening lead was the ♥A followed by a low heart which was ruffed by RHO. When eventually three tricks remained to be played partner claimed for one down and all cards were returned to the board.

The printout of the results and all boards was published the next morning (on Internet) and at that time I discovered that RHO in fact had held two hearts originally, so his ruff was indeed a revoke.

It was obviously too late to claim the two trick revoke penalty for a 3♣+1 result, but as the legal correction period had still not expired we did receive the adjusted score for 3♣= which was an indisputable "equity" under Law 64C.

How is this an example of 43B3? When did you violate any of the limitations in 43A?