In future I will try to enter new questions as a separate posting, so responses can be more easily connected with the original question. I'll start with Don's revoke question:
" Declarer is in dummy and the last five or six tricks in dummy are good. Declarer spaces out or gets careless and revokes in her hand while playing the remaining good tricks in dummy. Does this constitute a revoke or is this no harm/no foul?"
I agree with the response that "a revoke is a revoke", however, I would be happier if I had more facts to be able to confirm that what occurred was in fact a revoke. If declarer is in dummy and all the tricks are good, then it appears that a claim or concession is in order. Did declarer play it out trick by trick without claiming or without an opponent conceding? Or did declarer start playing and discarding quickly as if to demonstrate a claim? Was there truly no way to get out of dummy or was it essential for declarer to unblock or to play cards from the top to make sure s/he didn't get back to hand? Did someone call the director to report the revoke? (If dummy was indeed good then some opponents might take the 'no harm, no foul' position and not call the director to enforce a revoke penalty, in effect making a concession.).
Assuming that there was no claim or concession and the defenders called the director to report a revoke other than a trick 12 revoke, then director has a responsibility to check all of the relevant facts to make sure that what happened wasn't the equivalent of a claim. If the director determines after reviewing all the facts that what happened was an established revoke and not an implied claim, then, in my opinion, the revoke penalty would be appropriate.
" Declarer is in dummy and the last five or six tricks in dummy are good. Declarer spaces out or gets careless and revokes in her hand while playing the remaining good tricks in dummy. Does this constitute a revoke or is this no harm/no foul?"
I agree with the response that "a revoke is a revoke", however, I would be happier if I had more facts to be able to confirm that what occurred was in fact a revoke. If declarer is in dummy and all the tricks are good, then it appears that a claim or concession is in order. Did declarer play it out trick by trick without claiming or without an opponent conceding? Or did declarer start playing and discarding quickly as if to demonstrate a claim? Was there truly no way to get out of dummy or was it essential for declarer to unblock or to play cards from the top to make sure s/he didn't get back to hand? Did someone call the director to report the revoke? (If dummy was indeed good then some opponents might take the 'no harm, no foul' position and not call the director to enforce a revoke penalty, in effect making a concession.).
Assuming that there was no claim or concession and the defenders called the director to report a revoke other than a trick 12 revoke, then director has a responsibility to check all of the relevant facts to make sure that what happened wasn't the equivalent of a claim. If the director determines after reviewing all the facts that what happened was an established revoke and not an implied claim, then, in my opinion, the revoke penalty would be appropriate.
RSS Feed