[One Short]

Right then – here it is.
This is the hand that prompted the discussion posted in the Appeals section of this forum.

---

The contract is 5 ♣ by West after South opened the bidding with a weak 2 ♠, (only really relevant to enable South to recall that Declarer failed to take the marked spade finesse).
On the face of it, the contract can be made and with careful play it is possible for Declarer to make an overtrick. At the table the contract was made. But, in the opinion of the TD, because of the way it was played by Declarer, it must have been made by a revoke by Declarer.
The circumstances of discovery of the revoke were unusual. It was not until play had begun on the subsequent board that North queried the play of the previous hand and said that he believed a revoke had been committed.
The TD was duly informed and the TD said he needed time to gather his thoughts and the facts of the play of the hand. North (a non-offender) set about forthwith detailing the play, writing it down specifically and coherently. South agreed verbally with North’s recollection.
This is North’s submission:
1 Q♦ led taken by A♦
2 J♥ to A♥
3 Small ♥ ruffed in hand
4 J♣ led and held
5 A♠led and held
6 Q♠ led taken by K♠
7 Small ♦ taken by K♦
8 Small ♦ taken by 10♦
9 J♦ led and ruffed by Declarer - THE REVOKE
10 Small ♣ to Q♣
11 ♥ ruffed in hand
12 ♦ led ruffed with K♣ over-ruffed with A♣
13 Back to hand with winning ♣ ruff


Declarer (the offender) and Dummy put their heads together and in due course produced a joint letter. Their remembrance was not as clear-cut as that of North and comprised 5 points:
1 The lead of Q♦
2 The loss of a spade trick (spade finesse not taken)
3 The loss of a diamond trick
4 Lead at trick 12 by Declarer of a diamond, ruffed by North with K♣ and over-ruffed in Dummy with A♣
5 Trick 13 won by Declarer, ruffing with the last trump.

The TD compared the two submissions, which had been composed independently, and could find no conflict between the two, and that North was specific where the losses of the spade and diamond tricks had taken place. The conclusion of the TD, based on Declarer and Dummy’s joint submission alone, was the contract cannot be reached in the way Declarer had played it. Therefore Declarer must have revoked.
This view was reinforced by North’s quite specific recollections of the play especially where and how the revoke occurred, namely at trick 9.
TD ruled accordingly under Law 64 C and adjusted the score.

We have now all had wise counsel from the appeals forum; so
Q1 Do you, if you are a TD, agree that the contract cannot be made?
Q2 Would you, if so agreeing, deem that Declarer had revoked?
Q3 If whatever the TD does decide is appealed, and if this time you are on the AC, would you consider that under Law 93 B 3 you have no power to overrule the TD, and why?
Q4 You are still on the AC, if you consider that you have the power to overrule, would you and why?

[campboy]

It is possible that there was no revoke, just very unlikely. The only route consistent with dummy's statement without revokes that I can see is for North to return a heart at trick 9, and then to discard a diamond at trick 11 rather than overruffing.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2012-September-28, 04:12, said:

and then to discard a diamond at trick 11 rather than overruffing.

Assuming you mean that north failed to overruff declarer's attempt to ruff out the hearts, that means N insanely failed to take the setting trick when presented with the opportunity. Also I can't find a way to make it consistent with declarer taking the last trick by ruffing something.

Only slightly more plausible would be a line in which a second round of trumps is drawn earlier, and south foolishly discards a heart. North is put in with a diamond, returns a heart which declarer ruffs. Now declarer can draw the last round of trumps, discard a losing diamond on the 4th round of hearts, and will perforce have to place a trump on the last round of hearts.

The balance of evidence is strongly in favour of there having been a revoke, and that is what I would rule.

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-28, 07:56, said:

Assuming you mean that north failed to overruff declarer's attempt to ruff out the hearts, that means N insanely failed to take the setting trick when presented with the opportunity. Also I can't find a way to make it consistent with declarer taking the last trick by ruffing something.

Yes, that's what I meant by "very unlikely". In this scenario the last two cards would be a small diamond and small club for declarer, a spade and the king of clubs for North and a heart and the ace of clubs for dummy; if North ruffs in when declarer leads the good diamond then declarer will win the last trick by ruffing dummy's last heart.

Quote

The balance of evidence is strongly in favour of there having been a revoke, and that is what I would rule.

Me too.

[axman]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-28, 07:56, said:

Assuming you mean that north failed to overruff declarer's attempt to ruff out the hearts, that means N insanely failed to take the setting trick when presented with the opportunity. Also I can't find a way to make it consistent with declarer taking the last trick by ruffing something.

Only slightly more plausible would be a line in which a second round of trumps is drawn earlier, and south foolishly discards a heart. North is put in with a diamond, returns a heart which declarer ruffs. Now declarer can draw the last round of trumps, discard a losing diamond on the 4th round of hearts, and will perforce have to place a trump on the last round of hearts.

The balance of evidence is strongly in favour of there having been a revoke, and that is what I would rule.

I can say that the story presented by NS is believable to me as I have seen similar lines of play well over a hundred times. However, merely because it is believable does not mean it is so.

A reason for being skeptical is that I have tens of thousands of occasions where players said that such and such was the line of play but it wasn't.

I should think that the admonition about it being dubious to assert a revoke [or that there was no revoke] after one has prematurely mixed his cards has to do with the possibility that peoples' memories can be faulty/ conveniently faulty.

For the case at hand I would not be surprised if N did not face T13; and as EW's testimony does not preclude N's T13 card from being a diamond it is possible that N's T13 card was [for instance] a diamond; and thus the line of actual play need not neccessarily have included a revoke by EW- irrespective of what the balance of probabilities [or whatever standard of proof] says.

One of the things that I find very striking about the NS story. I find it odd that a supposed fifth round of diamonds did not immediately send alarm bells ringing for anybody that can count to 14; but I can see how there would be no alarm bells for someone that played the CK to T12 when he had a diamond.