[RunemPard]

(Swedish club level if it matters in the ruling)

I believe I understand what the rule book says regarding a revoke, however, I was quite annoyed to have to give up a trick on a hand tonight.
I apologize for not having the exact hands, but for whatever reason different hands are showing up on the website. I am going off of memory on the play so I have no spot cards and have replaced them with X.
LHO opens...
(1♠)-4♦-(4♠)-5♦
(5♠)-P-(P)-X-AP

Lead ♦K from partner..

You hold
AQxx
Ax
Axx
T9xx

♦K, x, x, ♠x
♣x, x, A, x
♠J, x, x, ♦x
♠x, A, x, ♦x
♦A, ♠x, ♦x, x
♥x, x, K, A
♦x, ♠x, ♦x, x


At this point, I am sitting with..
♠Qx
♥x
♦
♣xxx

A club is played and partner does not follow suit, I ask, no clubs? Partner replies no, and the trick is turned over and another suit is led from dummy. At this point partner discovers his revoke and director is called. We finish the hand and call back the director.

According to the laws, even if partner's revoke is 100% meaningless(other than trick 12), at least one trick is awarded to the non-offending side. In this situation, the trump were K to my LHO, x for RHO and Qx for me.

So rather than a nice 100% 5♠X-1, the opponents are rewarded 5♠X= for a top their way.

I just thought I would make sure I am understanding the rules correctly, that no matter how completely obvious a hand is, that the revoking side is always giving up a trick here? That just seemed wrong to me. Even though partner never won a trick, and the only trick we got was one that could not be avoided in any way before or after the revoke.

/end rant..

[pgrice]

RunemPard, on 2015-September-14, 15:24, said:

(Swedish club level if it matters in the ruling)

I believe I understand what the rule book says regarding a revoke, however, I was quite annoyed to have to give up a trick on a hand tonight.
I apologize for not having the exact hands, but for whatever reason different hands are showing up on the website. I am going off of memory on the play so I have no spot cards and have replaced them with X.
LHO opens...
(1♠)-4♦-(4♠)-5♦
(5♠)-P-(P)-X-AP

Lead ♦K from partner..

You hold
AQxx
Ax
Axx
T9xx

♦K, x, x, ♠x
♣x, x, A, x
♠J, x, x, ♦x
♠x, A, x, ♦x
♦A, ♠x, ♦x, x
♥x, x, K, A
♦x, ♠x, ♦x, x


At this point, I am sitting with..
♠Qx
♥x
♦
♣xxx

A club is played and partner does not follow suit, I ask, no clubs? Partner replies no, and the trick is turned over and another suit is led from dummy. At this point partner discovers his revoke and director is called. We finish the hand and call back the director.

According to the laws, even if partner's revoke is 100% meaningless(other than trick 12), at least one trick is awarded to the non-offending side. In this situation, the trump were K to my LHO, x for RHO and Qx for me.

So rather than a nice 100% 5♠X-1, the opponents are rewarded 5♠X= for a top their way.

I just thought I would make sure I am understanding the rules correctly, that no matter how completely obvious a hand is, that the revoking side is always giving up a trick here? That just seemed wrong to me. Even though partner never won a trick, and the only trick we got was one that could not be avoided in any way before or after the revoke.

/end rant..

Sounds like the revoke isn't established and partner will have a major penalty card

Quote

LAW 63: ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
A revoke becomes established:
1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).
2. when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

[blackshoe]

Agree with pgrice. Following that,

Quote

Law 62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

and

Quote

Law 62B1: To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card.
1. A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand.

The one (or two) trick rectification applies only after an established revoke.

[RunemPard]

Well that's funny...frustrates me even more as I was sitting there arguing whether it was even established. If I recall correctly, partner noticed the revoke directly after, before one of us had played to the next trick. I had asked to see the law in writing as well, but never got my demand. I will be having a talk with the people running this club for sure. Our opponents were a TD who runs our other afternoon tournament(he didn't make the ruling) and an experienced player. The irony is, if I felt it was this obvious, I would give the trick to most opponents simply because I don't wish to or need to win in such a manner. This single hand was the difference between winning or being in 3rd place.

I don't agree with this law even if it was established..it is simply illogical to me to "reward" a trick to a side when the outcome is determined and no line can affect it. In my mind, it is more screwing up the results for other players by placing a completely wacky "artificial" score in the field when a completely normal result is feasible.

But that's just fine and dandy...

[Vampyr]

RunemPard, on 2015-September-14, 17:17, said:

I don't agree with this law even if it was established..it is simply illogical to me to "reward" a trick to a side when the outcome is determined and no line can affect it. In my mind, it is more screwing up the results for other players by placing a completely wacky "artificial" score in the field when a completely normal result is feasible.

I don't agree with the law either; I think that relaxing the law concerning revokes is simply going in the wrong direction. But if people feel the way you do it has apparently not entirely lost its deterrent effect.

Anyway it is unacceptable that you were not given the opportunity to read the law or have it read to you. Definitely speak to the management, and in the meantime bring your own copy of the laws to the club.

[pgrice]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-14, 16:43, said:

Agree with pgrice. Following that, and
The one (or two) trick rectification applies only after an established revoke.

But only if there are tricks to transfer ... if the revoker doesn't win the revoke trick and the offending side doesn't win a subsequent trick, there is no rectification. In such cased we then don't need to consider L64C to restore equity ...

Quote

L64
C. Director Responsible for Equity
When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

[lamford]

RunemPard, on 2015-September-14, 17:17, said:

Well that's funny...frustrates me even more as I was sitting there arguing whether it was even established. If I recall correctly, partner noticed the revoke directly after, before one of us had played to the next trick. I had asked to see the law in writing as well, but never got my demand. I will be having a talk with the people running this club for sure. Our opponents were a TD who runs our other afternoon tournament(he didn't make the ruling) and an experienced player. The irony is, if I felt it was this obvious, I would give the trick to most opponents simply because I don't wish to or need to win in such a manner. This single hand was the difference between winning or being in 3rd place.

I don't agree with this law even if it was established..it is simply illogical to me to "reward" a trick to a side when the outcome is determined and no line can affect it. In my mind, it is more screwing up the results for other players by placing a completely wacky "artificial" score in the field when a completely normal result is feasible.

But that's just fine and dandy...

In this country you would be entitled to appeal to the national authority under either

a) an error of tournament direction, or
b) an error in the application of law or regulation.

You normally need to appeal against the TD ruling first, but, as you were not even allowed to see the law in writing, then I cannot see how you could have done more at the time. The club may argue that an appeal now is out of time, but you should argue that the TD should have advised you that you could appeal against his ruling at the time, especially as you were (correctly) arguing, on the facts you present, that the revoke was not established. Best might be to protest to the club committee against the ruling and ask them to allow a local appeal first.

[blackshoe]

Out of curiosity, would the NA entertain an appeal to them if the club denied the request for a local appeal?

It wouldn't matter here, as I don't think our NA would hear an appeal from a club under any circumstances.