[cloa]

In the case of declarer revoking with defender on play and then it is apparent on the next trick, why not just rewind the hand to the revoke and correct the revoke? Have a one trick penalty.

[pran]

cloa, on 2011-May-23, 21:41, said:

In the case of declarer revoking with defender on play and then it is apparent on the next trick, why not just rewind the hand to the revoke and correct the revoke? Have a one trick penalty.

Why should declarer be treated any different from defenders and not have to "pay" for his established revoke?

[iviehoff]

cloa, on 2011-May-23, 21:41, said:

In the case of declarer revoking with defender on play and then it is apparent on the next trick, why not just rewind the hand to the revoke and correct the revoke? Have a one trick penalty.

In what sense "apparent"? Do you mean that a defender sees declarer follow suit, when the defender thinks he saw declarer fail to follow suit immediately previously? In such situations, a defender can be mistaken as to what he remembers he saw. He cannot have public discussions about what he thinks he saw. We would have to turn the quitted cards face up to demonstrate it. This is not allowed until the end of the hand, and really is best delayed until then. If you are going to be having trick penalties, this is best left to the end of the hand. Trick penalties can only apply if declarer actually wins the revoke trick and/or a subsequent trick, and at this point we do not necessarily know whether this is true.