[ryac]

What is the penalty for a renege immediately after the trick has been played

[Stephen Tu]

If you discover you have reneged (aka revoked), immediately after the trick, before you or your partner has played to the next trick, you should halt play & correct the revoke by following suit and withdrawing the card originally played. The card you originally played becomes a major penalty card. You must play this card at the first legal opportunity. If your partner gains the lead before you have played the card, the declarer has lead restriction options (require/forbid lead of that suit, in which case the defender can pick up the card and play whatever legal card he wants, the card is no longer a penalty card; or allow any lead while the card remains a penalty card)

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-April-24, 20:45, said:

If you discover you have reneged (aka revoked), immediately after the trick, before you or your partner has played to the next trick, you should halt play & correct the revoke by following suit and withdrawing the card originally played. The card you originally played becomes a major penalty card. You must play this card at the first legal opportunity. If your partner gains the lead before you have played the card, the declarer has lead restriction options (require/forbid lead of that suit, in which case the defender can pick up the card and play whatever legal card he wants, the card is no longer a penalty card; or allow any lead while the card remains a penalty card)

Excellent advice to an ethical player, but as I recall you are not obliged to draw attention to your infraction.

ryac, on 2025-April-24, 13:58, said:

What is the penalty for a renege immediately after the trick has been played

Technically, a revoke can be penalized only if it was intentional (72B1): the penalty is up to TD but should be severe (this is a 'must not' case).
If it was unintentional but also undeclared (see above), then tricks may be transferred once it becomes established and the TD may if necessary assign an adjusted score.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2025-April-27, 16:03, said:

Excellent advice to an ethical player, but as I recall you are not obliged to draw attention to your infraction.

Yes, I looked that up and it's Law 72B(2)

Quote

In general there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by
one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).

Coming from a golf background where players are expected to call penalties on themselves and can be DQ'd for reporting a score that doesn't include a penalty, 72B(2) is something I completely disagree with.

[smerriman]

But the adjustment for an established revoke is usually harsher than having a penalty card, so unless you hope the opponents remain completely oblivious, you're better off speaking up if you notice in time.

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2025-April-27, 18:09, said:

Coming from a golf background where players are expected to call penalties on themselves and can be DQ'd for reporting a score that doesn't include a penalty, 72B(2) is something I completely disagree with.

Coming from a cycling/athletics background where breaking the rules is something to be avoided and confessed if necessary, I agree entirely. Hence my provocative "ethical" comment, although some wise souls on that other site (and even among my bosses) consider it always ethical to exploit the laws, however creepy they may be (see also the line drawn by B(3)).

smerriman, on 2025-April-27, 18:22, said:

But the adjustment for an established revoke is usually harsher than having a penalty card, so unless you hope the opponents remain completely oblivious, you're better off speaking up if you notice in time.

Not the kind of calculation I equate with sport (but then whenever I watch soccer the commentators nod their approval for a defender who "spends" a penalty well with an effective intentional foul).
In my experience, players are more likely to remain intentionally silent when the revoke was committed by an opponent and they hope it will become established incurring a harsher adjustment. Which is of course more of the same ilk.

[mycroft]

Coming from a cycling background where the top flights are more tainted by scandal than even bridge, I will ... take your view of the sport with interest.

But Bridge is not Golf is not Cycling is not American Football (where if you're not cheatin', you aren't tryin') is not Basketball (where effective management of "allowed fouls" is so expected, it would be a crime to not do it) is not...

But (personal and "Active" ethics aside), propriety in Bridge is governed by Law. 9A5 says you don't have to point out an irregularity on your own side, unless it's one of those that the opponents have no way of knowing you committed. 9A3 says you can, but need not, attempt to prevent an irregularity. 10C3 allows "the most advantageous action" to the non-offenders, and if that includes "let the revoke become established", then so be it. 72B gives all the "not on purpose, no trying to hide,..." stuff around it, but those are in fact the Laws.

I have been told more than once that I "should not", as a director, call on opponents' revokes that would not get an equity adjustment. I have never felt that was fair (or beyond fair, as the reasoning is "you know the laws better than most and shouldn't take advantage of that"). So my compromise is that I call all revokes, even the ones committed by my side. The Laws do not impose an obligation, but I do. However, that is 100% personal, and I do not hold anyone else (except my potentially unwilling partner-of-the-day that gets caught up in my own personal ethics) to that standard - 9A5 is right there.

But I certainly would not consider it sharp practise (except against real new players) to not check if the opponents have a card in the suit even if it is very likely (or 100%), in order to get the automatic trick adjustment from the revoke's establishment.

Thou shalt bid and play in turn.
Thou shalt bid higher than the last, if you choose to bid.
Thou shalt follow suit if possible.

Those that don't care enough, won't, or aren't careful about any of those three basic principles, and complain that the opponents don't let them get away with it (or minimize the damage), have exhausted my sympathy years ago (literally unless there's a reason - my stroke partner, the blind player, the lady prone to seizures, the person whose mind is going and needs to be told every trick where he is,...)

But again, personal opinion is personal opinion. The Laws are the Laws. Bridge is one of the weirder games, where ethics are written into the Laws.

[mycroft]

And since this thread died out, I have run two regionals, one very large and the other - a decent size.

And somewhere, I assume from where the "you can't ask 'Any questions?', you ask 'May I lead?'" brigade came from (and yes, as the Ruling the Game article points out, there can be an issue. But not when it's consistent, no matter the phrasing) - people are being told that you should be asking *the opponents* if they may lead. I had at least 5 people in Penticton tell me that this is what they have been told to do, and at least one in Saskatoon agree that they had been told it's correct, too.

Which (one person's objections that "the clarification period is for all players, including declarer, to ask questions" aside) seems like a very cute trick to try to put the onus on Opening Leads Out of Turn on to the declaring side. Which, I will absolutely agree, is a plus for the OLooTer, because instead of the 5 options, it's a "play based on misinformation" that is just corrected.

But there is nothing in the Laws that requires the declaring side to save you from leading out of turn. You are entitled to the contract, and which seat is declarer, and whether it was doubled or redoubled (but not by whom). You can also ask for a review of the auction. You can't ask "is it my lead" *and expect a correct response from the opponents*. Sorry.

Will I pull this in the club? Of course not. Do I have any sympathy for OLooTs at a tournament, whether I'm playing or directing? No. If you can't follow the Three Fundamental Requirements of Bridge, *that's not my problem*, and I resent anyone trying to make it my problem.

Thinks: how would the director rule "I have no objection" as an answer?

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2025-July-21, 23:11, said:

But there is nothing in the Laws that requires the declaring side to save you from leading out of turn. You are entitled to the contract, and which seat is declarer, and whether it was doubled or redoubled (but not by whom). You can also ask for a review of the auction. You can't ask "is it my lead" *and expect a correct response from the opponents*. Sorry.

What abvout Law 47E1:

Quote

A lead out of turn (or play of a card) is retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play (see Law 16C). A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances and Law 63A1 does not apply.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2025-July-23, 09:14, said:

What abvout Law 47E1:

Mycroft is I think taking the Taliban position that the opponents cannot be coerced into expressing a judgement about who is on lead, at their own risk should they mistakenly inform.

It's an interesting question and I did sometimes feel a bit guilty about asking this question: I would only do it in a moment of distraction and with opponents I know and trust. But yes, that means we are pushing the laws to gain protection we do not arguably deserve.

[mycroft]

If you insist (or even set up a framing where it is likely) that you will only lead when *the opponents* tell you you can, then you are trying to invoke L47E1 for your own benefit, rather than the "they volunteered the wrong information" that it is(*). "Never pay a OLooT penalty again, using this one simple trick!" (i.e. pushing the responsibility for your infraction on your opponents). And as far as I can tell, the people making this suggestion (which they phrase as "the way bridge is played") never even imply that the question *isn't one the opponents have to answer*. So anyone who doesn't want to "let me" play this game looks obnoxious and Bridge Lawyerly, and will be the one in focus when the Director eventually does get called.

I find that offensive, as an opponent or as a director. It's just as much Bridge Lawyering as (they will claim) declarer stating they are not required to answer that question and therefore they won't is, and in addition hidden in a "but we're just asking for a friendly game" rather than "referencing the laws for one's own ends" shell.

I still remember a ruling in the District Finals of the NAPs when I called for a lead out of turn, and the leader telling the Director "but they didn't tell me it wasn't my lead!" as if that was a Get Out Of Jail Free card. The Director's response (of course) was "they don't have to."

This is just the 2025 version of "they didn't tell me it wasn't my lead", couched in politeness and "in all innocence" framing (to declarer). I've never been called on a "but I asked them specifically and they said yes" hand (but I wouldn't, would I?), but I have a beer on "all the 'politeness' and 'friendly' will be gone, exchanged for 'they told me it was my lead'" (because whether they actually know the Law they're playing with, they certainly know that the TD's first question before has always been "did the opponents suggest it was your lead?" and there's gotta be a reason, so now I can answer "yes".)

I don't understand the "Taliban position" framing: to me, this is a clear, deliberate attempt to put the risk of their own potential infraction on their opponents; *and there's nothing in the Laws that says they have a right to it* (the social pressure tactics involved are to me just icing on the cake, but definitely slimy if they know what they're doing rather than just following a suggestion of some teacher). What next in the "avoiding the consequences of your own action", "But declarer didn't ask if I had revoked"? I mean, there's nothing in the Laws that says they must, but there *definitely* is a Law that says they *can*, so they should be at least partially responsible if they don't, right?

(*) There's the quote in Machlin's book about back pre-1963 when L47E1 didn't exist. "Maury Braunstein, who was a Regional director at that time, had been listening very carefully. "I thought all National directors ruled the same," he said to me. "Harry Goldwater never rules that way." "How does Harry rule?" I asked. "Well,", said Maury, "Harry rules, 'If you are stupid enough to believe a liar like that, you deserve the penalty I am about to give you'."

[barmar]

The way I understand that law, they don't have to answer "Is it my lead?". But if they do, they must answer truthfully or you can retract your LOOT without any rectification.