[bixby]

The "New Year's Riddle" thread asks how a player can win a trick while revoking, without playing a trump (or at notrump). (Spoiler alert: If you want to work on the riddle, stop here.)

The answer involves a careful look at the definition of "revoke" in Law 61, which includes "failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law." So suppose declarer is playing a notrump contract and a defender has the ♣5 exposed as a major penalty card. Declarer leads a club from his hand or dummy, and the defender with the penalty card follows suit with the ♣A instead of playing the exposed ♣5 as required by Law 50D1A. If no one notices, the defender will win the trick, but will have revoked.

But wait a minute! Assuming someone notices the incorrect play of the ♣A, Law 52B1A says that declarer may accept the play. OK, suppose that happens. The play still seems to meet the definition of "revoke" in Law 61! So does that mean that, even though declarer has accepted the play, it's still a revoke? If so, would it have to be corrected under Law 62A? Would it be subject to restoration of equity under Law 64C? (Per Law 64B3, it wouldn't be subject to rectification.)

Notice also that Law 52B1b provides that declarer must accept the illegal play if he has played after it. So suppose declarer calls for a club from dummy, declarer's RHO, who has the ♣5 exposed as a major penalty card, illegally plays the ♣A, declarer follows with the ♣7, and then declarer notices the illegal play and calls the Director. RHO's play clearly meets the definition of "revoke" in Law 61. So how does the Director reconcile Law 52B1b's statement that declarer must accept the play with Law 62A's statement that RHO must correct the revoke?

[axman]

bixby, on 2011-December-30, 08:46, said:

The "New Year's Riddle" thread asks how a player can win a trick while revoking, without playing a trump (or at notrump). (Spoiler alert: If you want to work on the riddle, stop here.)

The answer involves a careful look at the definition of "revoke" in Law 61, which includes "failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law." So suppose declarer is playing a notrump contract and a defender has the ♣5 exposed as a major penalty card. Declarer leads a club from his hand or dummy, and the defender with the penalty card follows suit with the ♣A instead of playing the exposed ♣5 as required by Law 50D1A. If no one notices, the defender will win the trick, but will have revoked.

But wait a minute! Assuming someone notices the incorrect play of the ♣A, Law 52B1A says that declarer may accept the play. OK, suppose that happens. The play still seems to meet the definition of "revoke" in Law 61! So does that mean that, even though declarer has accepted the play, it's still a revoke? If so, would it have to be corrected under Law 62A? Would it be subject to restoration of equity under Law 64C? (Per Law 64B3, it wouldn't be subject to rectification.)

Notice also that Law 52B1b provides that declarer must accept the illegal play if he has played after it. So suppose declarer calls for a club from dummy, declarer's RHO, who has the ♣5 exposed as a major penalty card, illegally plays the ♣A, declarer follows with the ♣7, and then declarer notices the illegal play and calls the Director. RHO's play clearly meets the definition of "revoke" in Law 61. So how does the Director reconcile Law 52B1b's statement that declarer must accept the play with Law 62A's statement that RHO must correct the revoke?

The law provides no reconciliation of the conflict therefore the TD does not reconcile the conflict.

It is noteworthy that the generally accepted procedure when a PC is created is that the TD monitors the play to ensure that the penalty is paid as prescribed. If the TD is successful <sic> that situation would not occur- so to speak.

[RMB1]

I think that declarer's acceptance of the ♣A (either by saying so or by playing) removes the requirement to play the penalty to this trick and so the ♣A is no longer a revoke.

[blackshoe]

Flow chart it.

A defender has a major penalty card. On the lead of that suit, he plays a different card (same suit). If declarer accepts it, the original MPC remains a MPC. The card illegally played, but accepted, becomes in effect a legal play. If declarer does not accept it, the original MPC must be played, and the new card becomes a MPC.

Once we apply a rectification from Law 52, we don't apply further rectification from Law 62. What if we did apply Law 62? The revoke must be corrected; the second card played becomes a MPC, and the original MPC must be played to the trick. This effectively negates declarer's option to accept the illegal play, making Law 52A1 superfluous. That cannot be right.

[axman]

RMB1, on 2011-December-30, 09:44, said:

I think that declarer's acceptance of the ♣A (either by saying so or by playing) removes the requirement to play the penalty to this trick and so the ♣A is no longer a revoke.

Well, TFLB provides no such thing. Using <accepts> wothout qualification** [which is what the law does] emphasizes the recognition of a fact of life, much as Cronkite used '...that's the way it is' and Doris Day used 'Que sera, que sera' Accept changes nothing just as the lack of accept changes nothing.. Where saying accept merely emphasizes that the PC is in force for future tricks without changing its status during the current trick.

** for an example of accept with qualification read L53A

Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect....

[pran]

Law 64B3 said:

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke:
[...]
if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy’s hand.

A penalty card is a card faced on the table, so while failure to play a major penalty card is indeed a revoke this revoke will never result in any rectification other than possibly according to Law 64C.

[blackshoe]

I think your interpretation of the legal meaning of "accepts" is at best flawed.

[jhenrikj]

Failure to play a penalty card can not be a revoke, even if it fits the definition in 61A. A revoke must be corrected if noticed before it is a established. A player failing to play a penalty card may not try to change it, so it can't be a revoke. The wording in 52 makes it impossible. We just have to accept that if a card is a penalty card, the only laws that applies to that card is the laws about penalty cards and no other.

[pran]

jhenrikj, on 2011-December-30, 15:06, said:

Failure to play a penalty card can not be a revoke, even if it fits the definition in 61A. A revoke must be corrected if noticed before it is a established. A player failing to play a penalty card may not try to change it, so it can't be a revoke. The wording in 52 makes it impossible. We just have to accept that if a card is a penalty card, the only laws that applies to that card is the laws about penalty cards and no other.

Failure to play a major penalty card is definitely a revoke as defined in:

Law 61A said:

Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

There is no rectification for this revoke as stated in:

Law 64B3 said:

if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy’s hand.

And Law 52 replaces Law 62 as the appliccable law on this particular type of revokes, making the question of the play being a revoke or not rather irrelevant.

[bixby]

I agree with those who say that Law 52 supersedes Law 61. But this is not textually obvious. Pran points out that Law 64B3 exempts revokes that consist of failing to play a penalty card from rectification (this was also pointed out in the OP). But Law 64B3 only exempts such revokes from rectification "as in A above" -- i.e., it only exempts such revokes from the one- or two-trick penalty provided by Law 64A. It doesn't exempt them from restoration of equity under Law 64C, nor does it say that Law 62A does not apply to such a revoke.

I think the answer has to involve application of the interpretive principle that "the specific controls the general." Laws 61-64 are general laws governing revokes; Law 52 provides a procedure for one specific kind of revoke. So in resolving the conflict between them -- and they do conflict -- I think Law 52 takes precedence. But the Laws are curiously conflicting on this point.

[pran]

bixby, on 2012-January-01, 17:57, said:

I agree with those who say that Law 52 supersedes Law 61. But this is not textually obvious. Pran points out that Law 64B3 exempts revokes that consist of failing to play a penalty card from rectification (this was also pointed out in the OP). But Law 64B3 only exempts such revokes from rectification "as in A above" -- i.e., it only exempts such revokes from the one- or two-trick penalty provided by Law 64A. It doesn't exempt them from restoration of equity under Law 64C, nor does it say that Law 62A does not apply to such a revoke.

I think the answer has to involve application of the interpretive principle that "the specific controls the general." Laws 61-64 are general laws governing revokes; Law 52 provides a procedure for one specific kind of revoke. So in resolving the conflict between them -- and they do conflict -- I think Law 52 takes precedence. But the Laws are curiously conflicting on this point.

I cannot imagine a situation where failure to play a penalty card (resolved by Law 52) can result in damage to declaring side, but I would certainly apply Law 64C (or Law 12A1) if declarer after play is completed can show (with some probability) that he has been damaged in spite of the rectification provided in Law 52.

Note that declarer is given a choice in Law 52; if he makes an unfortunate choice then the resulting "damage" is not considered caused by the "revoke" as such and shall therefore not be rectified under Law 64C.