I failed to have the dummy follow suit because the remaining card of that suit was accidentally hidden under a card of another suit. This was discovered later in the game, and treated as a normal revoke. Should the penalty have been reduced because the dummy is face up and everyone (opponents included) failed to notice that it had only 12 visible cards to begin with?
-
3Possible duplicate of What is the penalty for failing to follow suit?– NijApr 17, 2017 at 3:02
-
1"Standard American" is a bidding system, not a game variant. Were you playing duplicate bridge or rubber bridge, or a strange other? And you were penalised "as if" you reneged because you did in fact renege.– NijApr 17, 2017 at 3:03
-
Feel free to object to my rewrite, but I wanted to make it clearer what the crux of this question is because I think it's an interesting variant of the linked question and not quite a duplicate (though the answer is probably the same).– Benjamin CosmanApr 17, 2017 at 4:43
-
5Close voters please note: the penalty for dummy revoking is not the same as for another player; and BCG should not be telling inquirers that it is.– Tim LymingtonApr 17, 2017 at 9:22
-
Yes, this is a unique question, and does not deserve to be closed.– AryabhataApr 18, 2017 at 0:36
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
The actual answer is in Law 64D
there is no trick penalty for the established revoke ...3. if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on, or belonging to a hand faced on, the
table, including a card from dummy’s hand.
But a clearer view is given in In bridge, is there a penalty if dummy incorrectly lays down his hand? (not quite a duplicate but very close).
