[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2017-April-21, 14:09, said:

The question "having none, partner" or similar does not call attention to an irregularity. It calls attention to the possibility of an irregularity. If partner says he has none, still attention has not been called to an irregularity. Only if partner says "sorry, I do have one" or similar is attention called to an irregularity.

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

[lamford]

 axman, on 2017-April-22, 11:19, said:

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

That is quite a good argument, but if East had the queen of hearts then there would not have been a revoke. SB missed a trick here. He should have considered the possibility that RR had revoked and had dropped or lost the queen of hearts somewhere, and called the director at that point, even though there was still the possibility that there was no revoke. He could have done so on the basis that if there was no revoke, he wanted the hand recorded (an opening 1NT with a singleton) and if there was he wanted the queen of hearts to be located and played (to make the 2C an MPC).

It also does seem to be a lacuna in the laws, first pointed out by Vampyr, that a player can gain by lying in response to the question "having none". Maybe one for the 2027 rewrite ...

[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2017-April-22, 11:19, said:

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

It is also true that when he says he has none, attention has still not been called to an irregularity.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2017-April-22, 17:00, said:

It is also true that when he says he has none, attention has still not been called to an irregularity.

So, do you think someone could deliberately say, "No, I don't have any" and then, when the TD comes and finds that he still has the QH in his hand, it just becomes an established revoke?

[blackshoe]

I think if he deliberately lied, and continues to deliberately lie, about knowing he revoked, it will be very hard for the director to prove otherwise. In fact, in the ACBL, I think the director's correct action if he truly suspects lying is to report the incident to the Unit Recorder. In England, I suppose he could refer the case to a Conduct and Ethics Committee, but I'm not really conversant with procedures there.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2017-April-22, 22:16, said:

I think if he deliberately lied, and continues to deliberately lie, about knowing he revoked, it will be very hard for the director to prove otherwise. In fact, in the ACBL, I think the director's correct action if he truly suspects lying is to report the incident to the Unit Recorder. In England, I suppose he could refer the case to a Conduct and Ethics Committee, but I'm not really conversant with procedures there.

It is not clear whether he is allowed to lie in response to the question "having no hearts?", especially as the new Law 9A5 (and the old Law 9A4) says: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side". As you correctly observed, "having no hearts?" does not draw attention to an irregularity, and the player is under no obligation to do so. I think he does have to answer truthfully if asked by the TD, however, as 72B3 says: "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." I would say that lying to the TD was attempting to conceal an infraction, and it could be argued that lying to your partner's question was as well. And it should be noted that the requirement for the revoke to be corrected is "if [a player] becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." It does not matter if attention has been drawn to it, so axman is wrong as RR was not aware of the irregularity.

[barmar]

 sanst, on 2017-April-20, 09:55, said:

This is proof of the fact that clubs should have a rule prohibiting sticky or greasy foods at or near the tables. You can eat these at the bar, but should wash your hands, and probably your face too, afterwards.

Hear, hear! How many of these SB threads involved food in some way?

There was one last year involving a hesitation when RR (I think) spilled coffee/tea, and SB argued that he "could have known" that this would work to his advantage.

[Vampyr]

About this "having none"... not many people say it, but it should be in their strategic arsenal. What players need to do is evaluate how damaging the MPC will be. If not a lot, they should ask partner to have another look. On the other hand, when the MPC will be more expensive than the established revoke, they should keep mum, with a good chance of the revoke now becoming established.

The revoker, for his part, must aim to play the card he didn't play at the most damaging (to declarer) possible moment. The idea is to make sure that the revoke penalty will be insufficient to restore equity, in which case you don't have to pay it at all!

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2017-April-23, 09:47, said:

There was one last year involving a hesitation when RR (I think) spilled coffee/tea, and SB argued that he "could have known" that this would work to his advantage.

I recall it well. Did he not expose an ace in trying to avoid being burnt, and this worked to his advantage?

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 11:08, said:

About this "having none"... not many people say it, but it should be in their strategic arsenal. What players need to do is evaluate how damaging the MPC will be. If not a lot, they should ask partner to have another look. On the other hand, when the MPC will be more expensive than the established revoke, they should keep mum, with a good chance of the revoke now becoming established.

The revoked, for his part, must aim to play the card he didn't play at the most damaging (to declarer) possible moment. The idea is to make sure that the revoke penalty will be insufficient to restore equity, in which case you don't have to pay it at all!

And I think when the question is asked, they should both take time to consider whether to admit to the revoke or not. I foresee a new genre of defensive problems in bridge literature, where the first question is. "Do you establish the revoke or not?" The second question is "When do you intend to play the revoke card?"

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2017-April-23, 11:27, said:

And I think when the question is asked, they should both take time to consider whether to admit to the revoke or not. I foresee a new genre of defensive problems in bridge literature, where the first question is. "Do you establish the revoke or not?" The second question is "When do you intend to play the revoke card?"

There is a bit of a problem, as I have just discovered. L44C says that you must follow suit if possible, and that it is, in fact, the most important law.

However the only penalty for failing to do so is in the revoke laws. So the "holding up" gambit is illegal, but with no penalty what is to prevent players with questionable ethics from doing it?

[weejonnie]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 11:42, said:

There is a bit of a problem, as I have just discovered. L44C says that you must follow suit if possible, and that it is, in fact, the most important law.

However the only penalty for failing to do so is in the revoke laws. So the "holding up" gambit is illegal, but with no penalty what is to prevent players with questionable ethics from doing it?

Aren't you forgetting Law 72B3

3. 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. 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

[Vampyr]

 weejonnie, on 2017-April-23, 11:56, said:

Aren't you forgetting Law 72B3

3. 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. 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

Ah, right. But some directors are loathe to award DPs...

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2017-April-23, 11:56, said:

3. 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. 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

Indeed. I think once you discover that you have revoked you then have to follow suit thereafter when you can, but you do not have to own up to having revoked. You can discard the revoke card whenever you like, however, or keep it until the end (but not by committing a second revoke).

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 12:45, said:

Ah, right. But some directors are loathe to award DPs...

Not sure a DP is appropriate here. A PP would certainly be. Of course, some directors are loathe to award those as well.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2017-April-23, 13:34, said:

Not sure a DP is appropriate here. A PP would certainly be. Of course, some directors are loathe to award those as well.

I think a DP because it is deliberately flouting the rules.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, I guess that works.

[WellSpyder]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 11:08, said:

About this "having none"... not many people say it, but it should be in their strategic arsenal. What players need to do is evaluate how damaging the MPC will be. If not a lot, they should ask partner to have another look. On the other hand, when the MPC will be more expensive than the established revoke, they should keep mum, with a good chance of the revoke now becoming established.

Wouldn't that strategy give UI?

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-April-24, 02:38, said:

Wouldn't that strategy give UI?

No more so than waiting to see if partner wants to accept the lead out of turn when declarer leads from the wrong hand. Effectively that is saying, "what do you think about accepting this lead, pard?". UI cannot arise from the lawful procedures which includes "having none". It is something "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" and specified as AI. So, you can ask if it is in your interest to correct the revoke before it becomes established.

It would be quite wrong, however, to ask in order to convey information, indeed the "gravest possible offence" as stated in 73B2.

[barmar]

 weejonnie, on 2017-April-23, 11:56, said:

Aren't you forgetting Law 72B3

3. 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. 

That suggests a penalty. "may not".

The second revoke would also violate 72B1:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

I'd even suggest that knowingly giving an incorrect answer to "having none?" is a violation of these two laws.