[mr1303]

---

South (declarer) is on lead in a no trump contract.

Getting ready to claim, South leads his diamond, on which West discards a spade. Not knowing whom has the Jack, the Ace is played from dummy, and East discards a spade.

Thinking he has miscounted the suit, he plays another diamond from dummy, losing to the Jack in the West hand, who plays a club.

At this point the director is called, who advises to play the hand out and call him back.

Owing to the fortunate heart layout, declarer makes the rest of the tricks.

How do you rule?

[CamHenry]

The revoke is established, so we apply rectification or restore equity. The offending side one one trick after the revoke, and did not win the revoke trick, so one trick is transferred. This means that declarer makes the rest of the tricks. That is therefore the ruling - tricks won by the defense before the revoke are never transferred.

[Chris3875]

I give NS a trick - Law 64A2 - and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

[blackshoe]

One trick penalty, wtp?

I don't see the relevance of the "getting ready to claim" bit.

[iviehoff]

mr1303, on Jan 28 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

Getting ready to claim, South leads his diamond, on which West discards a spade. Not knowing whom has the Jack, the Ace is played from dummy, and East discards a spade.

So why didn't South just claim the rest at the end of that trick? With both opponents showing out in diamonds, he (apparently) now has 6 winners off the top, with entries, regardless of what happens in hearts, and there are only 5 tricks to play. If I was West, I'd just concede the claim. I won't be allowed to profit from my revoke, and nor can I lose tricks from before the revoke, so conceding all the tricks is a quick route to what's going to happen anyway if the director is called.

You were perhaps thinking that a side ought to make a profit when the other side revokes? Not necessarily. Sometimes the revoke penalty does exactly rectify the gain from the revoke.

Now if the H Q wasn't dropping, and E played a club back after winning the DJ, end-playing south, thus getting a second trick out of the revoke, then there would have to be an equity correction to give NS both tricks back. Again, EW end up just where they would have been without the revoke. NS can never do better than winning all 6 tricks.

[peachy]

iviehoff, on Jan 28 2010, 09:01 AM, said:

mr1303, on Jan 28 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

Getting ready to claim, South leads his diamond, on which West discards a spade. Not knowing whom has the Jack, the Ace is played from dummy, and East discards a spade.

So why didn't South just claim the rest at the end of that trick? With both opponents showing out in diamonds, he (apparently) now has 6 winners off the top, with entries, regardless of what happens in hearts, and there are only 5 tricks to play. If I was West, I'd just concede the claim. I won't be allowed to profit from my revoke, and nor can I lose tricks from before the revoke, so conceding all the tricks is a quick route to what's going to happen anyway if the director is called.

You were perhaps thinking that a side ought to make a profit when the other side revokes? Not necessarily. Sometimes the revoke penalty does exactly rectify the gain from the revoke.

Now if the H Q wasn't dropping, and E played a club back after winning the DJ, end-playing south, thus getting a second trick out of the revoke, then there would have to be an equity correction to give NS both tricks back. Again, EW end up just where they would have been without the revoke. NS can never do better than winning all 6 tricks.

Most of the time, the side that didn't revoke gets a windfall because the laws are very clear and inflexible about violating the most basic rule of the game: *follow suit*. Follow suit, and if you don't, opponent gets a free windfall except in some specified cases. Revoke law still mechanically prescribes Penalties while the other laws (all or most of them?) prescribe Rectification in various forms. IMO, this is exactly as it should be.

[Vampyr]

peachy, on Jan 29 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

Most of the time, the side that didn't revoke gets a windfall because the laws are very clear and inflexible about violating the most basic rule of the game: *follow suit*.

This was the case before the 2007 Laws, but now a revoke is basically a win-or-break-even proposition.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Jan 29 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

This was the case before the 2007 Laws, but now a revoke is basically a win-or-break-even proposition.

Maybe.

Law 72B1 said:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

The laws are primarily designed to redress damage. This has been true in the past, and is even more true in the current laws than it had been. But there is still the basic principle of the game that you follow suit when able. When you do not, you may break even, but if you make a habit of it, you may find yourself not even doing that - see Law 90A. And if you violate, or are deemed to have violated, Law 72B1, you will definitely not break even. I see no problem here. The alternative seems to be to give the NOS a windfall - if an opponent revokes, you get free tricks you wouldn't otherwise have gotten. That I don't like.

[bluejak]

Please explain the problem to me.

Declarer has six of the remaining six tricks.

A player revokes, declarer makes five tricks plus one for the revoke, and makes six tricks.

What am I missing?