[dickiegera]

Last night in playing a 4♠ contract after pulling trump I lead the Ace♣ and LHO played a small Heart.
I called for a card from dummy and RHO played a Club. Now RHO asks partner if he has no clubs. LHO finds a club and having turned heart face down turns heart back up while placing club on table.

Knowing there could be problem later I call director. Director asks questions and then states that since RHO asked about "no clubs" after he played his card instead of before playing his card that revoke was established.
This resulted in a 1 trick penalty and I was +480 rather than +450.
I told director that I didn't believe that revoke was established however director insisted that revoke was established.

I always believed that revoke could be corrected as long as LHO or RHO had not played to the NEXT TRICK.
Am I missing something?

Thank you

[campboy]

You are right that the revoke was not established. Because it was discovered before it was established, the revoke must be corrected. The card originally played then becomes a major penalty card.

The old laws used to say that the revoke penalty, ie transferred trick(s), still applied if attention was illegally drawn to the revoke. Even so, the revoke still had to be corrected if discovered in time (and was not "established", just subject to the same penalty as an established revoke). Perhaps the TD was going by the old laws -- although I thought that in the ACBL it was not illegal for defender to ask "having none" even then.

[pran]

dickiegera, on 2012-March-31, 08:09, said:

Last night in playing a 4♠ contract after pulling trump I lead the Ace♣ and LHO played a small Heart.
I called for a card from dummy and RHO played a Club. Now RHO asks partner if he has no clubs. LHO finds a club and having turned heart face down turns heart back up while placing club on table.

Knowing there could be problem later I call director. Director asks questions and then states that since RHO asked about "no clubs" after he played his card instead of before playing his card that revoke was established.
This resulted in a 1 trick penalty and I was +480 rather than +450.
I told director that I didn't believe that revoke was established however director insisted that revoke was established.

I always believed that revoke could be corrected as long as LHO or RHO had not played to the NEXT TRICK.
Am I missing something?

Thank you

Director's error - the revoke was not established.

The Director should have ruled that LHO must play a club to the trick and that the heart he had played becomes a major penalty card.

Following this rectification by LHO Declarer may now withdraw the card he played from Dummy and replace it with a different (legal) card, and (only) if he does so RHO may then withdraw the card he played to the trick and replace it with a different (legal) card. However, if RHO does so then also his withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card.

The relevant law is 62 (and 63).

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2012-March-31, 10:32, said:

I thought that in the ACBL it was not illegal for defender to ask "having none" even then.

Yes, this was legal in the ACBL at least as far back as 1987, and as far as I know, from the beginning of time.

The OP should have asked the director to read out the law regarding the establishment of a revoke.

[dickiegera]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-01, 16:36, said:

Yes, this was legal in the ACBL at least as far back as 1987, and as far as I know, from the beginning of time.

The OP should have asked the director to read out the law regarding the establishment of a revoke.

The question I am asking is: In ACBL land when can you ask partner " having none?".
Director is saying that he must ask question prior to playing card from his hand. If he plays card then asks it is too late

Thank you again

[Vampyr]

dickiegera, on 2012-April-01, 18:00, said:

The question I am asking is: In ACBL land when can you ask partner " having none?".
Director is saying that he must ask question prior to playing card from his hand. If he plays card then asks it is too late

Thank you again

No, it is too late if either member of the offending side plays a card to the following trick. As the director would have discovered (as could you subsequently) had he read out Laws 61 and 63.

[barmar]

Law 61, which allows defenders to ask each other, places no time limit on the question. And Law 63, which defines establishment of a revoke, makes no mention of the question.

[blackshoe]

There are three situations that may establish a revoke. Putative revoker's partner playing a card to the current trick is not one of them. As Barry says, Law 61 does not establish a time limit for the question whether partner has a card of the suit led. So it is not an infraction to ask even after one has played one's own card. In fact, this is true even if one plays to the current trick before partner, wins the trick, then leads to the next trick and then asks. It might be rather silly, though, since the lead establishes the revoke (if there was one) and you don't have to draw attention to your own side's irregularities (Law 9A4). In the case at hand, the revoke has not been established at the time it comes to light, so it must be corrected. The table ruling was clearly director error.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-01, 23:51, said:

Law 61, which allows defenders to ask each other, places no time limit on the question. And Law 63, which defines establishment of a revoke, makes no mention of the question.

While there is no "time limit", "too late" refers, for practical purposes, to when you may as well not bother, as the revoke is already established.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-02, 07:11, said:

While there is no "time limit", "too late" refers, for practical purposes, to when you may as well not bother, as the revoke is already established.

But the TD said it was too late once partner had played to the current trick, even though the revoke had not yet been established.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-02, 15:56, said:

But the TD said it was too late once partner had played to the current trick, even though the revoke had not yet been established.

We all know this is wrong though.

[bluejak]

Yet again a ruling that would have been made correctly if the TD had bothered to read it from the book.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-April-03, 07:25, said:

Yet again a ruling that would have been made correctly if the TD had bothered to read it from the book.

Maybe the book was in the car

[blackshoe]