[FrancesHinden]

South is declarer in a heart contract and has taken one ruff in hand and one in dummy, but no defensive trumps have been played. South has almost no idea from the auction what the opposing shapes are so no heart layout would be a surprise. In the 5-card end position shown below, South leads a heart from hand:

Scoring: MP

---

West discards a spade(!) and declarer then (more or less in the same breath) calls for the king from dummy, shows his hand, and claims saying he is "conceding two heart tricks". The defence agree and the board is scored on that basis.

So, questions....
At least one of East/West must surely (?) have realised what happened when they saw declarer's hand (?). According to Law 9A4 they are not obliged to draw attention to it, so (all other things being equal) that would be the end of it and they have done nothing wrong. Is this really right?

[hypothetical question]If West had said "oh I have revoked" before the claim, declarer would have made another trick (via the operation of 62C2). But what happens if West says it after the claim is made but before it is accepted? The revoke isn't established, but a claim has been made so play must cease. Do we still replay the last trick anyway as in any other non-established revoke, or have EW got away with no penalty for revoking just because declarer claimed?

As the claim was accepted and the next board played we get into Law 64C territory. North/South realise what happened when they look through the hand records once play is over, but within the correction period.

Suppose, as the TD, you find the other pair and they agree with what has happened. You are aware that the percentage line in the suit (with no revoke) would have been to play the king anyway, picking up singleton queen offside. How would you rule in order to restore equity?

In real life, N/S were actually a few miles away having started to drive home when they realised what had happened. What do you do, as TD, if they call your mobile phone and ask for a ruling? What if the other pair are still at the venue? What if they have left but you have their contact details?

[Bear in mind that there are only three ways this revoke could have come to light: EW admitting to it at the time, South not claiming in any position where he can still lose a trick, or when they look through the hand records... so any request for a ruling that is technically in time should never be considered 'too late']

[vigfus]

Q1. It looks so. But I do not like the ethics of that pair. ( I have seen such behaviour in real life as TD )
Q2. I would rule that E/W get 1 trick. BTW. East did not have a chance to play to the trick.
Q3. 1 trick again. There is no point to ask declarer what he would have done if West plays low heart. A lot of players would play the ♥9.
Q4. If they call within 30 minutes from the end of the session, then I have to find the opp's, that evening or the day after. Find if the opp's agree about what happened and make a ruling.

[campboy]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 18 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

At least one of East/West must surely (?) have realised what happened when they saw declarer's hand (?). According to Law 9A4 they are not obliged to draw attention to it, so (all other things being equal) that would be the end of it and they have done nothing wrong.  Is this really right?

Well, if West noticed the revoke before either defender accepted the claim then he was required to draw attention to it (and correct it).

Quote

If West had said "oh I have revoked" before the claim, declarer would have made another trick (via the operation of 62C2).

Only if East had already played to that trick -- if not I don't see why South would have any reason to want to change his card from dummy.

Quote

But what happens if West says it after the claim is made but before it is accepted? The revoke isn't established, but a claim has been made so play must cease. Do we still replay the last trick anyway as in any other non-established revoke, or have EW got away with no penalty for revoking just because declarer claimed?

Play ceases, but law 62A still requires the revoke to be corrected, and 62B permits declarer to withdraw the king of hearts. It does not, however, explicitly allow him to substitute a different card. So I would think that if declarer chooses to withdraw the king of hearts we should evaluate the claim on the basis that dummy has not played a card to this trick. Presumably we still assume declarer knows the card that East played to this trick (if he did so), even though it may also have been withdrawn.

[blackshoe]

Regarding Q1, it seems to me Law 79A2 may be germane.

Quote

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

[bluejak]

Q1 I think this is ok. Law 79A2 is not relevant, surely, because they might have got two heart tricks. As for the ethics of the situation, this is an old chestnut. Legally it is permitted, therefore it is ethical. Many people's personal [active] ethics would not permit it: fine for them, but you cannot insist others follow them.

Q2 Law 62 still applies so declarer can change his card played after the revoke.

Q3 Normal weighted ruling, with a balance of doubt bias, so the defence get two tricks some of the time but less than 50%.

Q4 If within the Correction period you attempt to find out the facts and rule, but if you cannot, then touch luck.