[G_R__E_G]

ACBL land, club game. I was called to a table after the hand had been played but all four players still had their cards on the table. There was a revoke made by declarer on the fourth trick and all players were in agreement to this. What had happened was a defender was on lead and played a low spade (contract was no trump), declarer discarded and so did the other defender and the trick was won by a high spade in dummy. At this point the defender who had lead the trick said "Something funny is going on here" because he knew that there were still spades out. As it turns out declarer did still have a spade or two. So, rather than call the Director for some reason they decided to play the hand out.

So, they are all guilty of not calling me after attention was call to the irregularity. The declarer then allowed the revoke to become established by continuing to play. Should I have ruled exactly like a normal revoke or not? If it matters, the defenders were very experienced players who should have known better than to keep playing, declarer was a novice.

[RMB1]

Yes, treat it as a normal established revoke.

The defence are not required to point out that there has been a revoke. What the defender said gave declarer a chance to correct the revoke, it is not his fault that declarer did not understand.

[blackshoe]

"For some reason"? I would have investigated the reason. Unless that investigation turned up something, say that the defenders urged that they play on without calling the TD, I would rule as Robin, but there is still that small chance that declarer got led down the garden path.

I think the table needs a reminder about calling the TD when attention has been brought to an irregularity.

[G_R__E_G]

Thanks guys - it looks like I did the right thing.

In regards to the "For some reason..." I will do a minor thread hijack of my own thread. I run the bridge club in Midland, Ontario, Canada. We had experienced a 5.5 earthquake in the afternoon (which might be nothing for Californians but it freaked us out a bit). Then about 30 minutes before game time a tornado hit the south end of town doing quite a bit of damage. Needless to say everyone was a little shook up but since the power was on at our end of town we didn't cancel bridge. I assumed that the poor judgement in not calling me may have had something to do with everyone not thinking straight so I just gave them a gentle reminder about calling when an irregularity happens.

Here are some pictures of the damage: http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0wNdL9ZxyNMB...ay%26type=photo

[blackshoe]

Heh. I'm in Rochester, NY. Someone mentioned that quake to me today. I said "what quake"? Turns out some folks here felt it, some didn't. Weird.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

"For some reason"? I would have investigated the reason. Unless that investigation turned up something, say that the defenders urged that they play on without calling the TD, I would rule as Robin, but there is still that small chance that declarer got led down the garden path.

I think the table needs a reminder about calling the TD when attention has been brought to an irregularity.

A very relevant law here is 11A:
The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

If declarer was ignorant of his right to prevent the revoke from becoming established the fact that he played on after attention had been called to an irregularity without the Director being summoned is sufficient to have the normal rectification for the revoke forfeited.

[RMB1]

I don't think "Something funny is going on here" is drawing attention to an irregularity. I think it takes one of the other players to admit they have revoked, before there is an irregularity to be drawn attention to.

[pran]

RMB1, on Jun 24 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

I don't think "Something funny is going on here" is drawing attention to an irregularity. I think it takes one of the other players to admit they have revoked, before there is an irregularity to be drawn attention to.

Well, I believe I would say that the remark is calling attention to some irregularity. (In fact the remark is extraneous and therefore technically an irregularity in itself.)

However, I have no problem accepting that opinions may be split on this question.

The important question is if declarer acted in ignorance of the relevant law(s).

[campboy]

Of course Robin is right that "something funny is going on" does not constitute drawing attention to the irregularity (I do not think it is even an irregularity in itself, since it is clearly an attempt to ask if a revoke has occurred, which is permitted by Law 61B). However I got the impression from the OP that declarer did in fact admit to having revoked at that time -- is that right?

If declarer had noticed the revoke -- whether he said so at the time or not -- he would be obliged to correct it (Law 62A).

[G_R__E_G]

I got the impression that the declarer admitted at the time that he had revoked but it was hard to know for sure - he seemed a little.....shall we say dazed.

[Chris3875]

I looked at the photos Greg posted and I think it says something about the tenacity and dedication of Midland bridge players that they would be out playing bridge after their town suffered an earthquake and a tornado on the same day !!