Profitable Revokes.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 191, 13 August 1931, Page 8

Profitable Revokes.

Auction Bridge.

By

A. E. Manning Foster .

One OP THE POINTS on which the Portland Club is adamant is the revoke law. It is true that in the revised laws of 1928 the penalty was reduced. But the Portland Club, and I think it voices the almost universal sentiment of Englan'd in the matter, absolutely refuses to whittle down the revoke penalty any further, and especially sets its face against the American laws, whereby declarer can score points below the line and even actually go game, in spite of the fact that he has revoked. It is not, of course, contemplated that anyone would revoke purposely, or, having revoked once and discovered the fact, would fail to follow suit a second time or subsequently to cover up the first revoke. Such procedure is nothing but cheating. And the laws do not deal with card sharpers. We have, therefore, to assume that every revoke is unintentional, and we are faced by this position. An innocent revoke which has no effect upon the score may be penalised out of all proportion to the offence. Only recently I saw a . case where a man had a small Club tucked away amongst his Spades. Declarer, playing a no trumper, led out a long suit of Clubs, and the unfortunate opponent revoked four times. On the other hand, a revoke may prove very advantageous to the opponents and may deprive declarer of game, even when he has taken his penalty, or of a little or grand slam. Here is a case in point from actual play:— Y S—K x II X X D—A KJlOxxx C—K x A B S—A J 10 8 S—x x x H—x x lI—K Qxx x x D—x x D—Q C—x xx x x C—A x x Z S—Q 9x x lI—A J x D— x x x C—Q J 10 Score, game all; Y-Z love, A-B 14. Z dealt and bid one noPtrump; A, two Spades; Y, three Diamonds; B, no bicl; Z, three no trumps; A, no bid; Y, no bid; B, double; Z. no bid; A, no bid; Y, redouble; all pass. I give the bidding as it occurred, although I cannot conceive a worse bid than A's two Spades. A opened with the Jack of Spades, and the trick was taken by dummy with the King. The King of Diamonds was then led from dummy. On the King of Diamonds B piaveti the 3 of Clu*bs. Z, therefore, realising that he must finesse the Diamonds through A, led a small Heart from dummy, putting himself in with the Ace, and then led a Diamond, playing dummy’s 10, which was taken by B with the Queen. Z then said to B, You have revoked,” which B acknowledged with apologies. B now makes five winning Hearts, and leads a Spade. The trick is taken bv A with the 10. A now led a Club, putting B in to lead another Spade. The ultimate result was that Z was six down on his contract, making only three tricks, a Diamond, a Spade and a lleart. It was therefore of no advantage to Z to take two tricks from the opponents, as that did not give him his contract. All he could do was to score 100 above the line. But if B had not revoked, Z would have made four by cards redoubled, losing only the Ace of Ciubs and two tricks in Spades. He would then have scored 160 below the line for tricks, 200 above for contract and overtrick, and 250 for rubber. B’s revoke therefore cost Z considerably in points, besides depriving him of the rubber. Carelessness must always be penalised, and I do not suggest that the law should ever allow a player to escape from its consequences. But surely, in equity, it should not be possible for opponents to deprive a player of certain game and rubber by a revoke, and it ought to be possible to make a law to prevent this manifest injustice. There is one point on which • I find many players are not clear. Declarer can always challenge an opponent if he thinks he is revoking. Of course, he is under no obligation to do so, nor, as a rule, will he desire to do so. But there are cases where a declarer knows that one of his opponents has revoked, and he also knows that it will not pay him to allow him to make a further revoke. It should be clearly understood that when such a case arises declarer may challenge the opponent.