🚀 go-pugleaf

Marcel wrote:
> Yesterday at the club:
>
> First board of the day, opponents play in 5D.
>
> I lead a club to the A of partner.
> Partner leads back a club, which is trumped by declarer.
> Play goes on and finally declarer claims the last 5 tricks, all the top
> diamonds and an ace are in dummy's hand.
> They go off one.
>
> After having played the first four boards, we record the hands.
> When we do that for the first board, we notice that declarer had 2 clubs,
> instead of one, so the ruff was incorrect. Nobody had noticed this at the
> time, because that second club was still in declarer's hand when the claim
> was made, and we all looked at dummy's cards, with the top diamonds and the
> ace. Declarer, a good player, is very much ashamed of herself and calls the
> director immediately...
>
> Should the score (1 down) be corrected? Or, should it stay as it is, since
> we all agreed on it...

Not simple.  First of all, we have Law 64B4: "The penalty for an
established revoke does not apply...if attention was first drawn to the
revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the
subsequent deal."  Since attention was drawn to the revoke three boards
later, this law applies, so the two-trick penalty doesn't apply.

But then there's Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke,
including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the
non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the
damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score."  There doesn't seem
to be a time limit applied to this Law; and in fact, Law 81C6 empowers
the director to rectify an irregularity "of which he becomes aware in
any manner", until the correction period expires.  So I think the
director should adjust, *if* the result would likely have been
different if declarer had followed suit at trick 2.

Laws 79B and 79C don't apply (except for the part of 79C that defines
the correction period) because those Laws have to do with disagreement
on how many tricks were won and on errors in computing or writing the
score.  Those don't apply here.  There was no disagreement on how many
tricks were won, and there was no error in computing the score; this is
a case about the Director adjusting the score.

Hope I covered all the bases here---one of the plenty of r.g.b'ers who
(unlike me) actually know how to direct will correct me if I missed
something.

                                 -- Adam

"Marcel" <info@nospam-bluegumdata.com.au> schreef in
news:4379ba2f$1@duster.adelaide.on.net:

> Yesterday at the club:
>
> First board of the day, opponents play in 5D.
>
> I lead a club to the A of partner.
> Partner leads back a club, which is trumped by declarer.
> Play goes on and finally declarer claims the last 5 tricks, all
> the top diamonds and an ace are in dummy's hand.
> They go off one.
>
> After having played the first four boards, we record the hands.
> When we do that for the first board, we notice that declarer had 2
> clubs, instead of one, so the ruff was incorrect. Nobody had
> noticed this at the time, because that second club was still in
> declarer's hand when the claim was made, and we all looked at
> dummy's cards, with the top diamonds and the ace. Declarer, a good
> player, is very much ashamed of herself and calls the director
> immediately...
>
> Should the score (1 down) be corrected? Or, should it stay as it
> is, since we all agreed on it...

If everyone agrees on the facts there is no problem. The error should
be corrected when discovered within the period described by L79C:
"Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later  time, this
correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been
made available for inspection."

Peter Smulders <peter@ergens.nl> schreef in
news:Xns970F832D1725Epeterergensnl@213.51.129.36:

> "Marcel" <info@nospam-bluegumdata.com.au> schreef in
> news:4379ba2f$1@duster.adelaide.on.net:
>
>> Yesterday at the club:
>>
>> First board of the day, opponents play in 5D.
>>
>> I lead a club to the A of partner.
>> Partner leads back a club, which is trumped by declarer.
>> Play goes on and finally declarer claims the last 5 tricks, all
>> the top diamonds and an ace are in dummy's hand.
>> They go off one.
>>
>> After having played the first four boards, we record the hands.
>> When we do that for the first board, we notice that declarer had
>> 2 clubs, instead of one, so the ruff was incorrect. Nobody had
>> noticed this at the time, because that second club was still in
>> declarer's hand when the claim was made, and we all looked at
>> dummy's cards, with the top diamonds and the ace. Declarer, a
>> good player, is very much ashamed of herself and calls the
>> director immediately...
>>
>> Should the score (1 down) be corrected? Or, should it stay as it
>> is, since we all agreed on it...
>
> If everyone agrees on the facts there is no problem. The error
> should be corrected when discovered within the period described by
> L79C: "Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later  time,
> this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score
> has been made available for inspection."

Sorry, was looking at the wrong paragraph. This is not a wrong claim,
but an established revoke. Then the penalty period ends when the non-
offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. Thus in this
case there is no penalty for the revoke, but the director may still
adjust the score under L64C. "When, after any established revoke,
including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the
non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the
damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score."


--
Peter Smulders

"Peter Smulders" <peter@ergens.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns970F874C3D359peterergensnl@213.51.129.36...
> Peter Smulders <peter@ergens.nl> schreef in
> news:Xns970F832D1725Epeterergensnl@213.51.129.36:
>
>> "Marcel" <info@nospam-bluegumdata.com.au> schreef in
>> news:4379ba2f$1@duster.adelaide.on.net:
>>
>>> Yesterday at the club:
>>>
>>> First board of the day, opponents play in 5D.
>>>
>>> I lead a club to the A of partner.
>>> Partner leads back a club, which is trumped by declarer.
>>> Play goes on and finally declarer claims the last 5 tricks, all
>>> the top diamonds and an ace are in dummy's hand.
>>> They go off one.
>>>
>>> After having played the first four boards, we record the hands.
>>> When we do that for the first board, we notice that declarer had
>>> 2 clubs, instead of one, so the ruff was incorrect. Nobody had
>>> noticed this at the time, because that second club was still in
>>> declarer's hand when the claim was made, and we all looked at
>>> dummy's cards, with the top diamonds and the ace. Declarer, a
>>> good player, is very much ashamed of herself and calls the
>>> director immediately...
>>>
>>> Should the score (1 down) be corrected? Or, should it stay as it
>>> is, since we all agreed on it...
>>
>> If everyone agrees on the facts there is no problem. The error
>> should be corrected when discovered within the period described by
>> L79C: "Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later  time,
>> this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score
>> has been made available for inspection."
>
> Sorry, was looking at the wrong paragraph. This is not a wrong claim,
> but an established revoke. Then the penalty period ends when the non-
> offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. Thus in this
> case there is no penalty for the revoke, but the director may still
> adjust the score under L64C. "When, after any established revoke,
> including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the
> non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the
> damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score."

And he should indeed have done so if the presentation gives a correct
understanding of the case.

regards Sven

"Marcel" <info@nospam-bluegumdata.com.au> writes:

> "Sven Pran" <no.direct@mail.please> wrote in message
> news:kImdnbahfv8cSuTe4p2dnA@telenor.com...
> >
> > "Peter Smulders" <peter@ergens.nl> wrote in message
> > news:Xns970F874C3D359peterergensnl@213.51.129.36...
> > > Peter Smulders <peter@ergens.nl> schreef in
> > > news:Xns970F832D1725Epeterergensnl@213.51.129.36:
> > >
> > >> "Marcel" <info@nospam-bluegumdata.com.au> schreef in
> > >> news:4379ba2f$1@duster.adelaide.on.net:
> > >>
> > >>> Yesterday at the club:
> > >>>
> > >>> First board of the day, opponents play in 5D.
> > >>>
> > >>> I lead a club to the A of partner.
> > >>> Partner leads back a club, which is trumped by declarer.
> > >>> Play goes on and finally declarer claims the last 5 tricks, all
> > >>> the top diamonds and an ace are in dummy's hand.
> > >>> They go off one.
> > >>>
> > >>> After having played the first four boards, we record the hands.
> > >>> When we do that for the first board, we notice that declarer had
> > >>> 2 clubs, instead of one, so the ruff was incorrect. Nobody had
> > >>> noticed this at the time, because that second club was still in
> > >>> declarer's hand when the claim was made, and we all looked at
> > >>> dummy's cards, with the top diamonds and the ace. Declarer, a
> > >>> good player, is very much ashamed of herself and calls the
> > >>> director immediately...
> > >>>
> > >>> Should the score (1 down) be corrected? Or, should it stay as it
> > >>> is, since we all agreed on it...
> > >>
> > >> If everyone agrees on the facts there is no problem. The error
> > >> should be corrected when discovered within the period described by
> > >> L79C: "Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later  time,
> > >> this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score
> > >> has been made available for inspection."
> > >
> > > Sorry, was looking at the wrong paragraph. This is not a wrong claim,
> > > but an established revoke. Then the penalty period ends when the non-
> > > offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. Thus in this
> > > case there is no penalty for the revoke, but the director may still
> > > adjust the score under L64C. "When, after any established revoke,
> > > including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the
> > > non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the
> > > damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score."
> >
> > And he should indeed have done so if the presentation gives a correct
> > understanding of the case.
> >
> > regards Sven
>
> And so he did... We got an extra 2 tricks.
> I felt that we got a little bit too much out of this, after all we should
> have looked at declarer's cards as well..
> Marcel

You may have gotten too much.

You would have gotten two tricks if the revoke had been caught at the
end of the hand.  On the actual sequence, you are only entitled to
equity, not to the automatic two tricks.  Without seeing the hands, it
seems most likely that declarer only gained one trick by the revoke; had
he followed suit, you would have taken the CK and declarer would ruff
the third club instead.

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.

"Sven Pran" <no.direct@mail.please> wrote in message
news:kImdnbahfv8cSuTe4p2dnA@telenor.com...
>
> "Peter Smulders" <peter@ergens.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns970F874C3D359peterergensnl@213.51.129.36...
> > Peter Smulders <peter@ergens.nl> schreef in
> > news:Xns970F832D1725Epeterergensnl@213.51.129.36:
> >
> >> "Marcel" <info@nospam-bluegumdata.com.au> schreef in
> >> news:4379ba2f$1@duster.adelaide.on.net:
> >>
> >>> Yesterday at the club:
> >>>
> >>> First board of the day, opponents play in 5D.
> >>>
> >>> I lead a club to the A of partner.
> >>> Partner leads back a club, which is trumped by declarer.
> >>> Play goes on and finally declarer claims the last 5 tricks, all
> >>> the top diamonds and an ace are in dummy's hand.
> >>> They go off one.
> >>>
> >>> After having played the first four boards, we record the hands.
> >>> When we do that for the first board, we notice that declarer had
> >>> 2 clubs, instead of one, so the ruff was incorrect. Nobody had
> >>> noticed this at the time, because that second club was still in
> >>> declarer's hand when the claim was made, and we all looked at
> >>> dummy's cards, with the top diamonds and the ace. Declarer, a
> >>> good player, is very much ashamed of herself and calls the
> >>> director immediately...
> >>>
> >>> Should the score (1 down) be corrected? Or, should it stay as it
> >>> is, since we all agreed on it...
> >>
> >> If everyone agrees on the facts there is no problem. The error
> >> should be corrected when discovered within the period described by
> >> L79C: "Unless the sponsoring organisation specifies a later  time,
> >> this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score
> >> has been made available for inspection."
> >
> > Sorry, was looking at the wrong paragraph. This is not a wrong claim,
> > but an established revoke. Then the penalty period ends when the non-
> > offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. Thus in this
> > case there is no penalty for the revoke, but the director may still
> > adjust the score under L64C. "When, after any established revoke,
> > including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the
> > non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the
> > damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score."
>
> And he should indeed have done so if the presentation gives a correct
> understanding of the case.
>
> regards Sven
>
>

And so he did... We got an extra 2 tricks.
I felt that we got a little bit too much out of this, after all we should
have looked at declarer's cards as well..
Marcel

Tamuel wrote:
> How about this situation?
> (I don't remember the small details, so let's say opponents played
> 4S)
>
> You lead a diamond. Dummy is displayed and hold singleton diamond.
> As there is no reason (as far as you can see) to force dummy to ruff,
> you switch into another suit and play is continued.
> However, when dummy plays one of his trumps later a diamond appear
> which accidentally (hopefully) had been hidden behind the spades.
> Later on, the diamond loser could be discarded on something and
> declarer made his contract (or scored an overtrick, whatever).
>
> We called for the director when we discovered that dummy had only
> displayed twelve of his cards, and the obvious continuation in
> diamonds looked pointless.
>
> However, director decided that no revoke had happened, as we did not
> play diamonds for the dummy to ruff or discard, so he ruled that the
> score would be unchanged.
>
> Was this correct?

Yes

> Are you obliged to check that all of dummys cards are visible?

You aren't obliged to, but if you don't and you lose out you won't get
any redress.

> What if you lead a club and dummy decides to try and hide one of his
> clubs, hoping that nobody will notice until later?

If dummy does this deliberately he's cheating and may get penalised
accordingly. But that doesn't really change the ruling above.

How about this situation?
(I don't remember the small details, so let's say opponents played
4S)

You lead a diamond. Dummy is displayed and hold singleton diamond.
As there is no reason (as far as you can see) to force dummy to ruff,
you switch into another suit and play is continued.
However, when dummy plays one of his trumps later a diamond appear
which accidentally (hopefully) had been hidden behind the spades.
Later on, the diamond loser could be discarded on something and
declarer made his contract (or scored an overtrick, whatever).

We called for the director when we discovered that dummy had only
displayed twelve of his cards, and the obvious continuation in
diamonds looked pointless.

However, director decided that no revoke had happened, as we did not
play diamonds for the dummy to ruff or discard, so he ruled that the
score would be unchanged.

Was this correct?
Are you obliged to check that all of dummys cards are visible?
What if you lead a club and dummy decides to try and hide one of his
clubs, hoping that nobody will notice until later?

Tamuel wrote
>
>How about this situation?

  It's a common one.

>(I don't remember the small details, so let's say opponents played
>4S)
>
>You lead a diamond. Dummy is displayed and hold singleton diamond.
>As there is no reason (as far as you can see) to force dummy to ruff,
>you switch into another suit and play is continued.
>However, when dummy plays one of his trumps later a diamond appear
>which accidentally (hopefully) had been hidden behind the spades.
>Later on, the diamond loser could be discarded on something and
>declarer made his contract (or scored an overtrick, whatever).
>
>We called for the director when we discovered that dummy had only
>displayed twelve of his cards, and the obvious continuation in
>diamonds looked pointless.
>
>However, director decided that no revoke had happened, as we did not
>play diamonds for the dummy to ruff or discard, so he ruled that the
>score would be unchanged.
>
>Was this correct?

  No.

>Are you obliged to check that all of dummys cards are visible?

  No.

>What if you lead a club and dummy decides to try and hide one of his
>clubs, hoping that nobody will notice until later?

  That's different.

  First, if a card is accidentally covered, then there is an infraction:
dummy has broken L41D.  Since there is no stated penalty, L12A applies,
and an adjustment is given if the defence might have been damaged by the
hidden card.

  Second, if a card is deliberately covered, that's cheating: it is a
serious infraction done deliberately and knowledgeably so as to gain
advantage, in defiance of L72B2.  A strong warning would be normal for a
first occasion, expulsion from the SO, suitable for any recurrence.  Of
course, there will also be an adjustment on the hand as in the previous
paragraph.

  It is not easy to prove cheating?  True, but no-one cheats *once* -
or, if they do, they probably get away with it.  This player will get
exposed in time.

--
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats  Railways    /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697               @ @
<bridge2@blakjak.com>         ICQ 20039682     bluejak on OKB   =( + )           Bridgepage:        http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm      ~

Another situation:

Alert is not mandatory in the tournament.
2nd seat opens with 2H, which is alerted.
You check out the declaration that lays on the table.
It says that 2H is Acol.
You have quite good cards, but decide not to enter against a strong 2
opening.
LHO pass, and so does your partner.

As you, yourself, once had a partner that passed on a strong 2 (and
that was correct that time as the opening was minimum) you think
nothing more of it, until dummy is displayed and you discover that
dummy had something like 10 HCP.

It turns out that the declaration in question belonged to another
pair. This played weak 2 instead.
However, as declarer played really badly she went down, and we scored
a complete top, as we could not make any contract.