Hi Paul,

Since the early 1950s and probably before, the non-offending side has the right to equitably force a revoker (intentional or not) to follow suit and restore the equity which goes with, on this hand of taking the first 11 tricks.

The offending side may or may not get a procedural penalty in addition to -460 or -660 depending on whether the TD thinks that just possibly, the revoker did so on purpose in order to keep the declarer from making as many tricks as he deserves.

I, as a TD, would likely penalize a person for doing such a thing unless there was significant evidence that the player knew so little about the game which would be unlikely, but may be possible.

Why would anyone be in doubt about the rules of bridge and equity restoration which has always been about writing laws which make sense? Without that concept. we would still be roaming the desert for at least 40 years.

In the 1950s there was a lady from Houston, who shall remain nameless, but obviously intentionally revoked several times, (that we know of) and after perhaps the third time, she was forever barred from being allowed to play, never, to my knowledge, to be seen again.

The rules and the equity which goes with should always be an integral and necessary adjunct to the specific laws which, in turn, serves to cover the bases. If ever something similar comes up, which is not specifically covered, it would be worse than imaginable for equity to not be restored by the powers that be and any excuse given, should be immediately discarded.

I’m sorry if my emotion irritates, but anyone so naive as to believe that the revoke discussed could be made and then gotten away with, is playing the wrong game.

Anyone who claims otherwise should check back with players who experienced the above, or similar serious transgressions.

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for shining some light on the revoke situation. Another case I wonder about is one where declarer say is in 4S, wins an opening diamond lead, and begins drawing trumps, with declarer’s trumps being AQxxx opposite Kxx. On the first round of trumps, one of the opponents shows out, and declarer now shifts to a totally different way to play the hand on the assumption that trumps are breaking 5-0. This “Plan B” turns out to be a disaster, and declarer goes down three. It also turns out that the opponent showing out of trumps on the first round actually had two spades, and the suit could have come home with no losers. Most directors would again simply go for the one trick/two trick penalty, which in no way restores equity. How should equity be restored?

Hi Paul,

If ANY TD, ACBL or even just a club owner, would not cancel the result of down 3 (after someone with 2 spades failed to follow on the first round and award an equitable result with any doubt in the play being resolved in favor of the non-revoking side then he or she should be court marshaled on the spot, never to be allowed to direct a tournament again.

In some ways I am exaggerating, but in truth, any TD who doesn’t understand the restoring of equity by an officer of the game (which TD’s happen to be) he or she just doesn’t understand the intent of the bridge laws.

It is not a case of making up laws which fit only some occasions, but rather restoring the status quo, and giving the non-offending side the benefit of all doubt.

Very simple to do that, and to not do it, is beyond comprehension.

End of story!

Well said, Bobby! I have faced situations similar to what is decribed above when directing in club games. Assuming the errors were innocently made, I look at the hand and restore equity based on normal declarer play.

I am fortunate that I have not had an incident when someone revoked on purpose.

These are all pretty straightforwarward rulings. Law 64 covers the “Procedure after establishment of a revoke”. It has three subsections to it, the first two being on “Rectification following a revoke” and “No rectification”. The last one is the significant one, it is on “Director responsibility for equity.”

That section says, in full:

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

Seems pretty straightforward. And as has been pointed out, any deliberate breaking of the “Laws” should result in a procedural penalty (in addition to the rectification, that is). Not learning from the Director’s explanation and repeating the offense is cheating and should be punished appropriately (Bobby gave an example).