12 English Bridge April 2016 www.ebu.co.uk
She was correct up to the end of your first
paragraph. The 'win a trick with a card that could
have been played to the revoke trick' no longer
applies. The question now is simply whether or not
the revoke card won the revoke trick. However
when it comes to considering whether you deserve
an adjustment in equity it is irrelevant what
happened at other tables - all that matters is what
would have happened at your table without the
revoke. So I suspect she gave the right answer there
too, but not for the reason you have given.
Law 58a says 'A lead or play made simultaneously
with another player's legal lead or play is deemed to
be subsequent to it.' So I think you should rule that
RHO played first, LHO created a major penalty card
with the ™8, and the ´9 was played (prematurely) to
the trick. LHO's penalty card needs to be played at
the first legal opportunity, but if RHO gains (or
retains) the lead before it's been played, then
declarer has the option to insist on, or prohibit, a
heart lead - in which case the ™8 will cease to be a
penalty card. If declarer allows any lead the ™8
remains a penalty card.
It is correct to score an unplayed board by using
Law 12 to award AV/AV-/AV+ according to
responsibility for the delay. It is not lawful to use the
Not Played function (which effectively awards both
sides their session score for the unplayed board)
when a board is removed due to slow play.
The two occasions when it is appropriate to mark
a board as Not Played are (temporarily) when you
have designated a board to be played later on, or
when you have changed the movement for everyone
to shorten one or more rounds by one board.
So when you have to take away a board due to
slow play, you are correct to score it as AV if both
pairs are partly at fault, but you should investigate
the cause of the slowness and on some occasions it
might well be right to award AV+/AV- or even AV/AV-.
You should never score it as Not Played in
these circumstances. r
PETER Jackson wrote, 'Defending a hand at my
local club, partner led a small trump, dummy
followed with a trump, declarer threw away a loser
and I took the trick with the ace, my last trump.
The next trick declarer trumped my lead. The
revoke was established. The director ruled a one
trick penalty (later they had made another trick).
I suggested it might be two as his last trump rather
than the revoke card made a trick.
She said she would review the decision to see if
we had been disadvantaged at the end of play.
Analysis of the result showed another pair had the
same score as us and therefore she could not give
us an extra trick because we would then be
outright winners on that board. Was she right?'
DAVID Wilson said, 'Hull BC is moving into the
21st century and has purchased Bridgemates. I
notice that we can score a board as Not Played.
Rightly or wrongly we have always scored an
unplayed board (eg when a table has run out of
time) as average for both pairs. However it seems
to be more sensible if scored as Unplayed.
Obviously if someone is culpable then we can give
A- (and A+ to innocent players).
Is there any EBU guidance as to whether we
should use Unplayed as opposed to Average as it
obviously makes a difference to a person's score.'
DAVE Edwards asked, 'Part-way through a hand,
declarer's RHO, on lead, puts ´10 on the table.
Thinking it was his lead, LHO puts ™8 down, then
realises it was not his turn and puts ´9 down too
and I get called. Declarer and dummy agreed there
was a split-second between RHO and LHO
playing a card but didn't agree which was first.
Opponents didn't know.'
Revokes, leads and unplayed
by Gordon Rainsford, Egordon@ebu.co.ukent Director
Email your questions to Gordon Rainsford at firstname.lastname@example.org
Gordon, English Bridge and the EBU are not responsible if the information provided is incorrect or incomplete.
Ask GordonAsk Gordon
powered by PageTiger