ART OF AUCTION BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 129, 3 June 1927, Page 6

ART OF AUCTION BRIDGE.

REVOKES

A. E. MAXXIXG FOSTER.)

A correspondent sends me a singular case which occurred at the table. "Towards the end of the game," he writes, "Declarer led a card from Dummy, and revoked by trumping. On next lead the opponents discovered the revoke, and the error was rectified by Declarer taking back his trump and playing a card of the suit led. The status quo was completely restored, and the game proceeded. The opponents were therefore at no disadvantage; nevertheless, at the end of the game, they claimed the usual penalty for a revoke." My opinion is asked as to whether the opponents had or had not forfeited their right to a penalty by having the revoke adjusted. Of course, the whole proceeding was most irregular, and I have no doubt that the opponents could not claim the revoke after allowing the error to be rectified. I asked Mr. Dalton his opinion and ho confirmed my view. He states, "The object of the alternative penalty of taking three tricks (by Declarer) is to compensate for the possible loss caused by a revoke.. The opponents could not have it both ways by having the trick reinstated and then by claiming the revoke." But why the opponents ever allowed the trick to be rectified when presumably it would have paid them better to leave it is a mystery to me. A great deal of misunderstanding about revokes exists even amongst experienced and regular club plavers. The cases on which the Portland Club is asked to give decisions are often extremely illuminating. Players should buy and study the 'Cases and Decisions of the Portland Club," which are issued with the laws in a handy little book published by Messrs. De la Due, price 2/6. Here is an interesting case: —"A Heart is led. and the second and third hands follow suit. The fourth player, holding both red Aces, plays the Ace of Diamonds in mistake for the Ace of Hearts, gathers the trick and quits it. The adversaries at once object, the trick is turned up, and the error is discovered. Is it a revoke? Decision.—No; the turning and quitting of a trick by a player who has not won it does not establish a revoke. (Law 82.) At first eight it would appear to most of us that fourth hand undoubtedly has revoked. He has not followed suit and he has gathered a trick to which he is not entitled. But if you think out the matter you will see that the decision is equitable. The case is on quite a different footing from that sent by my correspondent. In this case the player has mistaken the Ace of Diamonds for the Ace of Hearts and thinks he has played the Ace of Hearts and therefore gathers a trick to which he believes himself entitled. It would bo hard on him and his partner to be penalised for a mistake which is of quite a different character from a genuine revoke. Of course, if the opponents had not discovered immediately the wrongful gathering of the trick and the player in fault had led to the next trick he would have revoked. A rather knotty point is involved in the fol- : lowing case:—"Spades are trumps. At the fourth trick B leads a Heart. Z, the declarer, plays a trump and then plays a small Heart from Dummy, before A plays. Dummy then says, 'No more Hearts, partner? , Z discovers that he has a Heart and plays it. He then claims the right to replace the card played from Dummy's hand and plav another card to the trick. Decision.—Yes, he can replace it. (Law So.) This decision may seeui to contradict Law 60. which states that a card once played or named by the Declarer as to be played from his own hand or from Dummy cannot be taken back except to save a revoke. One can understand that Z, when challenged, having discovered his mistake, can, of course, rectify it. But it seems straining the meaning of the law that he can replace a card already played from Dummy and ©lay another to the trick. I have no doubt, however, that the idea at the back of the decision was sound. While revokes are penalised, and rightlr penalised severely, it is not in the spirit of the Jaws to make things too hard when the revoke has been saved. And here I would rub in the necetsitv of always asking your partner and insisting on' him answering when he fails to follow suit. There are many players who seem to resent it as a personal affront when they are challenged by their partners. I know some who say icily, "I never I ? vok £" I * at " all nonsense. I don't believe ahere is a single player in the world who does not revoke some time in his lifetime. Every player however good, is liable to revoke- Often it happens that the good player revokes because he is quick in his play and thinks a trick, ahead.