Join Bridge Winners
Declining the revoke penalty

In "Ruling the Game" in the October 2018 issue of the Bridge Bulletin: "The law is concerned only that the non-revoking side gets equity or better, and accepts the fact that the revoking side may well artificially lose a trick that would not have been lost without the revoke. Conversely, it understands that there may be a windfall given to the non-offending side."

Recently in a club game, playing against two very pleasant ladies, the following occurred. In spite of our massive preempt barrage in hearts, the opponents landed in six spades. I led the heart King, dummy shows up with one heart and declarer trumps to win that and the next 11 tricks. At trick 13, declarer discovers that she is holding the heart ace (it was a singleton). I am a certified director and explained to the declarer that her revoke on trick one would translate to a 2-trick penalty (small slam down one rather than making with an overtrick). I also explained that I am neither calling the director nor enforcing the revoke penalty because it was obvious to me that the penalty would be too cruel. After all, she always had 13 tricks by winning the first trick with her singleton ace of heart and cashing the next 12.

Did I do the right thing? Should I have called the director and enforced the revoke penalty? I must admit that against a nasty player, I might have enforced the penalty (I define nasty player as one who calls the director when I take a few extra seconds to make a call, one who berates and/or yells at his partner and opponents, one who gloats over good results ... you know the kind of person I have in mined).

122 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top