[shevek]

South plays 4♥.

At some stage, West leads a spade, which declarer ruffs.
Soon after, South places ♠8 face up on the table and everyone calls the director.

The director asks South something like "Did you lead ♠8 to the next trick?"
South & dummy say "No". In her mind, South was just revealing that she he had a spade. Note that she hadn't said "Hang on, I've got a spade."
East-West maintain that declarer had led ♠8 to the next trick.

Advice please.

[pran]

shevek, on 2012-March-22, 22:36, said:

South plays 4♥.

At some stage, West leads a spade, which declarer ruffs.
Soon after, South places ♠8 face up on the table and everyone calls the director.

The director asks South something like "Did you lead ♠8 to the next trick?"
South & dummy say "No". In her mind, South was just revealing that she he had a spade. Note that she hadn't said "Hang on, I've got a spade."
East-West maintain that declarer had led ♠8 to the next trick.

Advice please.

It is a matter of judgement.

If South's action and manner is that of discovering (preferably with a bit of apparent surprise) and revealing that she had a spade then you rule that she corrected the revoke before it became established.

On the contrary if the action and manner is that of leading the ♠8 you rule that South led ♠8 to the next trick and thereby established her own revoke.

The fact that she did not explicitly declare that she had the spade (before exposing/playing it) is not alone decisive.

[mjj29]

On the other hand, if south were correcting her revoke, why did she not replace (or start doing so) the trump played to the previous trick? Just putting down the 8♠ without any motion to retrieve the trump which was played makes me much more likely to rule that it was a lead rather than correcting the revoke. This would be one of my first questions to South.

[gordontd]

shevek, on 2012-March-22, 22:36, said:

The director asks South something like "Did you lead ♠8 to the next trick?"
South & dummy say "No".

Isn't it amazing how often players answer for their partners questions that depend on knowledge of their state of mind ("of course it was a mechanical error")?

[pran]

mjj29, on 2012-March-23, 02:43, said:

On the other hand, if south were correcting her revoke, why did she not replace (or start doing so) the trump played to the previous trick? Just putting down the 8♠ without any motion to retrieve the trump which was played makes me much more likely to rule that it was a lead rather than correcting the revoke. This would be one of my first questions to South.

Oh, I have lost count of all the times I have experienced an embarrassed player just exposing his or her evidence of a revoke.

And I never ask the revoking player directly if (s)he played or showed the card, I explain the difference and then ask all the players (collectively). Very seldom is there any conflict in their answers.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-March-23, 03:45, said:

Oh, I have lost count of all the times I have experienced an embarrassed player just exposing his or her evidence of a revoke.

Not me. There's always some kind of exclamation ("oops") or explanation ("sorry, I have a spade"). Even if not verbal, there's usually an obvious facial expression.

[RMB1]

pran, on 2012-March-23, 03:45, said:

Oh, I have lost count of all the times I have experienced an embarrassed player just exposing his or her evidence of a revoke.

Is it the TD's role to embarrass a player so that they expose their revoke?
Or does this interfere with a player's enjoyment of the game?

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-March-23, 10:43, said:

Is it the TD's role to embarrass a player so that they expose their revoke?
Or does this interfere with a player's enjoyment of the game?

This is nonsense. Sven didn't suggest any such thing. What he suggested is that the scenario in the OP — a player revoked and, embarrassed, just put his card of the suit led on the table — is not in his experience uncommon. And note that the director need not even have been called yet, as he was not in the OP.

My experience is more in line with Barry's — they almost always say something.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 11:51, said:

This is nonsense. Sven didn't suggest any such thing. What he suggested is that the scenario in the OP — a player revoked and, embarrassed, just put his card of the suit led on the table — is not in his experience uncommon. And note that the director need not even have been called yet, as he was not in the OP.

My experience is more in line with Barry's — they almost always say something.

Thank you - spared me some comments.

My point is that it doesn't really matter if the player said anything while showing his (or her) card. What is important is TD's judgement on whether the card was shown in an apparent act of playing it or in an act of confessing a revoke. An exclamation like "Oh, I have a spade!" of course definitely eliminates any problem.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 11:51, said:

This is nonsense. Sven didn't suggest any such thing.

pran, on 2012-March-23, 13:56, said:

Thank you - spared me some comments.

Seem to have hit a nerve

[pran]

RMB1, on 2012-March-23, 14:19, said:

Seem to have hit a nerve

No, you didn't hit any nerve (I am more robust than that), but this last comment makes me wonder if you deliberately misread my post.

[blackshoe]

I suspect if he was doing it on purpose he'd have used a different smiley.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 16:05, said:

I suspect if he was doing it on purpose he'd have used a different smiley.

Let us hope so