[dickiegera]

At the local game a defender revoked on the 2nd trick in the trump suit.
On the 12th trick declarer played his cards and claimed.
Dummy asked to see REVOKER's last card; REVOKER obviously had a trump left
by his mannerism at quickly laying down last 2 cards and a earlier hesitation
when a trump was lead.
REVOKER said dummy could not ask and quickly shuffled his cards.

Director could easily determine that REVOKER had a trump and his partner had even said
to REVOKER "no Hearts" and REVOKER replied "none"

Director gave a 1 trick penalty however I believe that there should have been a
procedure penalty

Comments Thank You

[Lobowolf]

I agree. Play ceases after a claim has been made, and after play has ceased, any player can ask to inspect an opponent's cards. Deliberately mixing his cards after an inquiry has been made seems like a great candidate for a procedural penalty.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Director gave a 1 trick penalty however I believe that there should have been a
procedure penalty

The TD apears to have accepted that there was a revoke which needed a one trick rectification. The offender appeasrs to gave breached Law 65D deliberately so I agree that a PP is in order.

[Free]

Yes, punish him severely for trying to cheat!

[iviehoff]

This behaviour is so perverse. Having finally noticed that he did have a trump, he was so embarrassed about it he tried to conceal it. He would have done better to play it and win a trick, thus cancelling out the revoke penalty. Given the kind of person who would behave in this manner, and thus damage themselves, I can understand why the director didn't feel there was much point applying a PP.

[bluejak]

No, this thinking is totally wrong. If you do not punish, then the player will slowly come to realise that advantage of cheating and do it again. Furthermore, you also encourage his partner and opponents to cheat when it is seen it gets no punishment.

It is vital that cheats are always punished.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Oct 12 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

No, this thinking is totally wrong. If you do not punish, then the player will slowly come to realise that advantage of cheating and do it again. Furthermore, you also encourage his partner and opponents to cheat when it is seen it gets no punishment.

It is vital that cheats are always punished.

This player has not escaped unpunished. The punishment comprises being left very red-faced, and received a larger revoke penalty than if they had just played the trump to win a trick. It depends upon the circumstances whether this is adequate.

I think you have to know the people involved. This is clearly a person of low bridge intelligence. Now why is that? Unless there is a history of anti-social bridge behaviour, there may be no point in further making an example of them. The manner of dummy's intervention is also relevant.

[campboy]

Lying, cheating and deceiving -- to use a phrase from a certain other game -- in an attempt to get out of a revoke penalty really is not acceptable, and it does not become acceptable merely because the attempt was unsuccessful.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on Oct 12 2010, 01:47 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 12 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

No, this thinking is totally wrong.  If you do not punish, then the player will slowly come to realise that advantage of cheating and do it again.  Furthermore, you also encourage his partner and opponents to cheat when it is seen it gets no punishment.

It is vital that cheats are always punished.

This player has not escaped unpunished. The punishment comprises being left very red-faced, and received a larger revoke penalty than if they had just played the trump to win a trick. It depends upon the circumstances whether this is adequate.

I think you have to know the people involved. This is clearly a person of low bridge intelligence. Now why is that? Unless there is a history of anti-social bridge behaviour, there may be no point in further making an example of them. The manner of dummy's intervention is also relevant.

It is not enough. Give them a small PP specifically for breaking the Laws intentionally.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on Oct 12 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

The manner of dummy's intervention is also relevant.

The manner of dummy's intervention may result in a PP for him. It makes no difference to the PP for the defender. And of course, "dummy" ceased to be dummy once the claim was made, so the restrictions on dummy (Law 43) no longer apply.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Oct 12 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

iviehoff, on Oct 12 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

The manner of dummy's intervention is also relevant.

The manner of dummy's intervention may result in a PP for him. It makes no difference to the PP for the defender. And of course, "dummy" ceased to be dummy once the claim was made, so the restrictions on dummy (Law 43) no longer apply.

I assume you mean, if the "manner" involves zero tolerance. Otherwise we have already determined that he isn't "dummy" any more when the revelation occurred.

[blackshoe]

You know, I've read the ZT regulation a time or three. It says, in effect, "the TD will enforce the law." IMO ZT exists because people were violating the proprieties, and TDs were blowing it off. So it's really a statement that TDs weren't doing their jobs, and telling them they have to. Personally, I don't think I need a ZT regulation to enforce the law.

But all that's a side issue. By "manner" I did indeed mean that a violation of the proprieties ("manner") should result in a PP, ZT or no ZT.

[Bbradley62]

bluejak, on Oct 12 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

It is not enough. Give them a small PP specifically for breaking the Laws intentionally.

Why small? Small penalties should generally be assigned to accidental breaking of the rules; large penalties should be assessed for deliberate actions such as this.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Give them a small PP specifically for breaking the Laws intentionally

I think this is very odd. In England it is rare for the PP to be other than a standard amount (10% of a top). Very occasionally if there is a gross breach it maybe more.

I think that IF the director establishes to his satisfaction that this was a deliberate attempt to break the laws then by any standards it is serious and would tend towards a larger rather than smaller PP.

As a general principle if a player knows what the law is and deliberately flouts it then a significant penalty should be considered

a. to dissuade him from repeating his offence
b. to dissuade others from trying the same thing

If he is inexperienced then the director should explain quietly to him why this is a serious offence rather than reducing the fine for his lack of experience.

[bluejak]

Penalties get a disproportionate reaction anyway. I expect they would not if they were given out freely. So a penalty has quite an effect whether large or small.

Flouting of the rules is not a black or white matter: players do it every day in large or small ways. It is not sufficient to say "deliberate" as though that makes it the end of th world: players deliberately give verbal answers behind screens for example.

I think the idea of no penalty or a huge penalty is wrong: there are many things where a small reminder is best: ergo a small penalty.

[blackshoe]

I note that David has not said how he would define "small" in terms of % of a top. For myself, I'd call 10% "small", but then I come from a zone where the "standard" PP is 25% of a top.

[jallerton]

campboy, on Oct 12 2010, 02:12 PM, said:

Lying, cheating and deceiving -- to use a phrase from a certain other game -- in an attempt to get out of a revoke penalty really is not acceptable, and it does not become acceptable merely because the attempt was unsuccessful.

I would like to agree with you 100%. However, in Duplicate Bridge we have the not so wonderful Law 9A4:

Law9A4 said:

There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

and (in case you missed Law9A4) the point is repeated in Law 72B2:

Law72B2 said:

2. 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).

though the causal reader might reasonably wonder why the cross references are different.

Law 62A says:

Quote

LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE

A. Revoke Must Be Corrected

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

but it would appear that in the case in this thread the revoke had already been established.

Law 79A2 :

LAW 79A2 said:

2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

is not relevant to this case.

So why are so many people suggesting a PP for "cheating" (a term which directors are strongly advised to avoid)?

It is not clear to me why the violation of Law 65D mentioned by Jeremy should attract a PP: Law 65D says what a player "should" do, not what a player "must" do. Law 65D explains the penalty/rectification for failing to comply: the player jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.

The only Law which could suggest a PP is Law 72B3:

Law72B3 said:

A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

However, as Jeff Rubens eloquently points out in this month's Bridge World, there can be a fine distinction between failing to "draw attention" to an irregularity and "concealing" it. Are players expected to be aware of all of these Laws and of the distinction between them?

[blackshoe]

While the report of the incident that started this thread is clearly biased, it appears that the defender concerned did attempt to conceal his revoke, and may have done so both during the play (by revoking a second time) and after the claim. The laws are clear - attempting to conceal a revoke is illegal. 72B3 uses the words "must not" which is the second strongest of the negative injunctions.

It is true that a player is not required to point out an infraction by his own side, but that doesn't mean he is entitled to make rulings (telling the former dummy that he's not entitled to see defender's last two cards) on his own or to mix his cards when there's apparently still a question to be answered. It certainly doesn't mean he's entitled to actively conceal an infraction.

There may be a fine distinction between "not reporting" and "concealing" in some cases, but not in this one. And yes, I would expect even a beginner to know that mixing his cards to conceal a revoke is not kosher.

[campboy]

I thought it went without saying that it was law 72B3 that we were issuing a PP under. Anyway, no, of course players are not expected to know all these laws. I would expect laws 72B2 and 9A4 to be a surprise to most players, in fact. But laws 72B1 and 72B3 really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[MBV53]

Law 66D also applies along with 72B3.
D. After the Conclusion of Play

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side.


Such player can be suspended for that Event/Tournament if TD beleives that the infraction was deliberate.
MBVSubrahmanyam
India.