[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.

[barmar]

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

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

You can't revoke on BBO, so there's no penalty.