Join Bridge Winners
Revoke confusion

I'm puzzled about a couple of revoke rulings my partner and I experienced this past week at a local club game, and we both would be very grateful for the thoughts of the Bridge Winners community. I have no intention of taking this further, or embarrassing anyone, but would like to know, going forward, what the current treatment of revokes might be. I do understand that directors can't always take the time to fully sort out each little violation. Fair enough.  it's just a club game... sorta.  Thanks in advance for any insight you may have time to provide.  

First situation



We were East-West, defending 3NT on the lead of a low H to the Q, which held, Clubs split, so declarer had 11 straightforward tricks. Then a funny thing happened. Somewhere in the middle of running the clubs, declarer (South) failed to follow suit. He noticed his error after playing to the next trick, so the revoke was 'established'. A director was called, and declarer played out the hand.  He finished running the clubs, then crossed back to his hand to cash the remaining club which he had not followed suit with earlier, and finished with 12 tricks, having won several of them after the revoke. The director said, "Well, of course he has to return the extra ill-gotten club trick, but since you were not otherwise damaged, there is no further penalty." I said, 'Gee guys, that makes great sense, and I like that approach, but I always thought there was some sort of draconian penalty for going to sleep and revoking, whether or not it was consequential."  I was informed, gently, that such was no longer the case, and I accepted it with a measure of satisfaction, since it seemed to be making for an easy and less rancorous problem-solving model.

Three days later, same club...

Second situation


Well, this time we were in 2 Spades, the early play being irrelevant. At the point of the hand shown in the hand diagram, one of the opps had a small trump left. Declarer (South), in dummy, and wanting to come to hand to draw it, chose to ruff a Diamond to hand. She then drew the last trump, and crossed back to dummy to take all her winners. Needless to say, the director came and ... promptly assessed a two-trick penalty, since she won tricks after the revoke and had won the trick she revoked on. 

I commented, without much concern (since were well into a 42% game,)  that I understood that ruling quite well, and been both predator and prey in seeing it applied. but - had the laws not just been changed to try more simply to restore equity?  And in this case, declarer, intending to come to hand (maybe with the jack?) had simply made an inconsequential error.   She was certainly entitled to all the remaining tricks and there was no damage, so...

So no dice. 

Undaunted, today I sought out a respected director in town. Surely he would know...

My original question got a mumbled response (via email, no less) so I asked for clarification. Were these two situations parallel, or not, and did they warrant the same resolution or not. (I get that we all make mistakes.) 

His answer, "It is a good day when equity is restored by the penalties. That is the intent of the Law. Sometimes non-offenders get a bonus trick and that is unfair to the field, but as I said, expediency is more important to the time restraints of the game than justice."


On the other hand, if this is the toughest problem I've faced in the past few days, life must be good.

Thanks for any insight you may be able to provide. :)

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top