[Lanor Fow]

---

There was an interesting situation in a recent event. I was not directing at the time.

South was playing 3N on the 8♦ lead. The ♦K was taken by the ace and a diamond returned to South's q. South played the 10♣, ducking from North, which held the trick when East revoked (throwing a ♠). South played another ♣ and West played the Ace, East playing another spade. West now played a third round of ♦. At this point South claimed "On the marked club finesse". After confusion East finds the Q♣ stuck behind another card.

How would you rule?

[jvage]

This seems to fall under §64C2a:
"After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred."

If East followed with the ♣Q on the second round declarer got the rest (11 tricks). With a one-trick penalty for the first revoke declarer makes 12 tricks (the trick won by the ♣A is transferred, §64A2).

[barmar]

When C2a says "tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred", does that include the trick that's transfered for the first revoke, or just the actual number of tricks?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2020-January-24, 08:53, said:

When C2a says "tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred", does that include the trick that's transfered for the first revoke, or just the actual number of tricks?

There is what is known as "the Beijing minute" (of the WBFLC), which, from memory only, restores equity to what it was after the first revoke, which includes the penalty for the first revoke. This was misapplied in the infamous Riccardi Revoke Ruling, I think in Poznan 2011, where the second revoke gained a trick and an eminent AC failed to overturn it causing Ton Kooiman to tear his hair out, or what hair he had left!

In this case the equity after the first revoke was 12 tricks, so that is what is applied.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2020-January-24, 09:37, said:

There is what is known as "the Beijing minute" (of the WBFLC), which, from memory only, restores equity to what it was after the first revoke, which includes the penalty for the first revoke. This was misapplied in the infamous Riccardi Revoke Ruling, I think in Poznan 2011, where the second revoke gained a trick and an eminent AC failed to overturn it causing Ton Kooiman to tear his hair out, or what hair he had left!

In this case the equity after the first revoke was 12 tricks, so that is what is applied.

Ton has still plenty of hair left, at least when I last saw him. More than me, anyway. BTW, it’s Kooijman with a “j”. Yes, Dutch is a strange language and we love to keep it that way.

[pescetom]

Antonio still has plenty of hair left too

[pescetom]

jvage, on 2020-January-24, 06:20, said:

This seems to fall under §64C2a:
"After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred."

If East followed with the ♣Q on the second round declarer got the rest (11 tricks). With a one-trick penalty for the first revoke declarer makes 12 tricks (the trick won by the ♣A is transferred, §64A2).

I'm on a cell phone and probably having a bad day too, but I can't see how declarer got the rest (or even near) if East did not revoke on second round.

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2020-January-24, 11:41, said:

I'm on a cell phone and probably having a bad day too, but I can't see how declarer got the rest (or even near) if East did not revoke on second round.

Declarer would get four clubs, four spades, two diamonds, one heart and one penalty trick (the ace of clubs).

[axman]

lamford, on 2020-January-24, 09:37, said:

There is what is known as "the Beijing minute" (of the WBFLC), which, from memory only, restores equity to what it was after the first revoke, which includes the penalty for the first revoke. This was misapplied in the infamous Riccardi Revoke Ruling, I think in Poznan 2011, where the second revoke gained a trick and an eminent AC failed to overturn it causing Ton Kooiman to tear his hair out, or what hair he had left!

In this case the equity after the first revoke was 12 tricks, so that is what is applied.

Such a parsing does not accord with the law and implies that that the law is rewritten without approval of the Executive. But the law was not thus rewritten when it was amended in 2017 as it contains no such words (and being approved by the Executive).

In the current instance:

64C2a requires an adjusted score if more tricks were likely if some number of revokes had not occurred. This occurred here- upon the claim declarer is worth 8 tricks while absent a revoke it is likely he would take 10. Thus an adjusted score.

12C1b requires (b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.

It is clear that declarer ought to take 10 tricks absent the revokes which thus is the proper adjusted score.

However, there is a strong case that had declarer drawn timely attention to the second revoke then (instead of an adjusted score) he ought to have been entitled to the score for dropping the Q under the ace whether or not E corrected that revoke.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2020-January-24, 13:19, said:

It is clear that declarer ought to take 10 tricks absent the revokes which thus is the proper adjusted score.

So you think it is correct to take away from declarer tricks, that he in fact won?

Quote

However, there is a strong case that had declarer drawn timely attention to the second revoke then (instead of an adjusted score) he ought to have been entitled to the score for dropping the Q under the ace whether or not E corrected that revoke.

And there is a penalty trick, of course, so what is your total now?

(I assume you meant to say defender above, since declarer was not aware of any revokes)

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2020-January-24, 12:35, said:

Declarer would get four clubs, four spades, two diamonds, one heart and one penalty trick (the ace of clubs).

Still don't get it, sorry.
If East followed with the Q clubs on second trick instead of revoking, then what is the penalty for? And can't he now set up another 3 tricks by leading a small diamond ?

[pescetom]

axman, on 2020-January-24, 13:19, said:

It is clear that declarer ought to take 10 tricks absent the revokes which thus is the proper adjusted score.

Not so clear to me. For starters he had a chance to take 11 tricks after East played A diamonds on trick 1, but presumably (and understandably) he failed to discard J hearts on trick 2 (OP doesn't say). He still would have taken 10 tricks had he played K clubs on trick 2. But by leaving the trick to the Q, he is now exposed to a small diamond lead and will take only 8 tricks in all. Or am I missing something here?

[PeterAlan]

pescetom, on 2020-January-24, 17:15, said:

Still don't get it, sorry.
If East followed with the Q clubs on second trick instead of revoking, then what is the penalty for? And can't he now set up another 3 tricks by leading a small diamond ?

The application of Law 64C2(a) means that in arriving at the adjusted score:

• the first two tricks, including the revoke, are as they were at the table.
  
• E is then deemed to have played the ♣Q on the third trick, not the second, ie under W's ♣A.
  
• declarer then takes 11 actual tricks (4♠s, 1♥, 2♦s and 4♣s) in all
  
• adding one for the revoke penalty (the offending side won the ♣A after the initial revoke) gives 12 tricks.

(Edited to correct point about when ♦A taken by defenders.)

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2020-January-24, 17:15, said:

Still don't get it, sorry.
If East followed with the Q clubs on second trick instead of revoking, then what is the penalty for? And can't he now set up another 3 tricks by leading a small diamond ?

We are looking at what would have happened if East had revoked once and then followed on the next round. The penalty is for having revoked on the first club trick. Don't forget he won't win this second club trick, because the queen is being played under his partner's ace.

[gordontd]

axman, on 2020-January-24, 13:19, said:

Such a parsing does not accord with the law and implies that that the law is rewritten without approval of the Executive. But the law was not thus rewritten when it was amended in 2017 as it contains no such words (and being approved by the Executive).

Minutes of the WBFLC have the status of law.

[Vampyr]

One of the many deficiencies with thr current version of the laws is that had South not claimed but taken the club finesse, East winning with the queen, the defenders would have received an extra trick.

[jhenrikj]

Vampyr, on 2020-January-25, 02:25, said:

One of the many deficiencies with thr current version of the laws is that had South not claimed but taken the club finesse, East winning with the queen, the defenders would have received an extra trick.

How? The score would still be adjusted to 12 tricks.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2020-January-25, 02:25, said:

One of the many deficiencies with thr current version of the laws is that had South not claimed but taken the club finesse, East winning with the queen, the defenders would have received an extra trick.

No they wouldn't. We would look at adjusting in equity in the same way, by considering what would have happened if the queen had been played on the second round of clubs.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2020-January-25, 03:18, said:

No they wouldn't. We would look at adjusting in equity in the same way, by considering what would have happened if the queen had been played on the second round of clubs.

But isn’t there a difference now that the queen has actually won a trick?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2020-January-25, 04:21, said:

But isn’t there a difference now that the queen has actually won a trick?

No:

Law 64C2a said:

After repeated revokes by the same player in the same suit (see B2 above), the Director adjusts the score if the non-offending side would likely have made more tricks had one or more of the subsequent revokes not occurred.

so the result shall be adjusted as if no revoke subsequent to the already established (first) revoke had occurred. (Note that the first revoke is not affected.)
In that case the ♣Q would have fallen under the ♣A