[paulg]

In a contract of 2♦, there is an established revoke on trick 5 when a defender ruffs a trick and then, two tricks later, leads the suit that he ruffed. The hand is played out and declarer makes five tricks.

Two tricks are transferred and the contract is then scored as 2♦ down one trick.

Without the revoke, a mildly careless defence might let declarer get six tricks.

Could equity be considered six tricks plus two for the revoke, or has the revoke penalty been more than equitable?

Thanks

Paul

(I did check the EBU White Book, but the only reference to this was when both defender and declarer revoke)

[PeterE]

Take this simple rule as a rule of thumb:
You either apply rectification tricks or equity - never both.

The TD first transfers applicable tricks (if any - Law 64 A) and then investigates, whether the outcome still has damaged the NOS. If so, he applies Law 64 C (the equity rule) instead of Law 64 A and/or B.

So, the answer to your case is 2♦ -1.

[paulg]

Thanks.

Simple I can understand