[Ethel]

Dealer S, all Vul. Contract 4S by N
N J 9 6 3
Q 7
K 6
T 7 6 4 2

West T 5 Q 7 2 East
T 8 4 3 2 K J 5
9 7 J 8 5 4
A K Q 5 J 9 8
S A K 8 4
A 9 6
A Q T 3 2
3

A club was led, taken by the Q, the AC was led and ruffed in dummy. Declarer now led the small diamond to his K. Played the JS (not covered) and won the trick. Then played the KS and West showed out. Declared played the QD, then AD which was trumped by West. I do not know the rest of the play, but the final result was down two for -200. This was corrected to -100 due to the revoke. The declarer claims that this result does not restore equity, as if West had followed to the second trump the Declarer would have make the contract. How do you rule? For your information only, the hand was played 2 other times, one North made the hand and one South only made three.
Thanks

Sorry this is not in the proper format and that I did not get it sent correctly the first time.

[Ethel]

West hand: S T 5
H T 8 4 3 2
D 9 7
C A K Q 5

East hand:

S Q 7 2
H K J 5
D J 8 5 4
C J 9 8

Hope this is clearer.

[barmar]

It would best if you used the hand diagram editor to post hands. Click on the "spade" icon in the editor toolbar to load it.

[inquiry]

---

LAW 64
PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE

64A2.

2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick 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.

C. Director Responsible for Equity When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. I would assign 4♠+1 as the result, 5♦ + 4♠ + 1 ♣ ruff + 1 ♥ using Law 12C1i. The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

An easy ruling.

[pran]

inquiry, on 2016-February-14, 16:05, said:

---

LAW 64
PROCEDURE AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE

64A2.

2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick 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.

C. Director Responsible for Equity When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. I would assign 4♠+1 as the result, 5♦ + 4♠ + 1 ♣ ruff + 1 ♥ using Law 12C1i. The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

An easy ruling.

And incorrect!
Just try to show how declarer can win 5 tricks in Diamonds with the line of play he followed up to the moment of the revoke.

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on 2016-February-14, 16:05, said:

I would assign 4♠+1 as the result, 5♦ + 4♠ + 1 ♣ ruff + 1 ♥ using Law 12C1i. The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

An easy ruling.

There is no Law 12C1i. I think you meant Law 12C1{e}{i}, which is no longer the law in the ACBL. The current (as of 1 Jan 2016) law is 12C1{c}, under which you might award some percentage of 4♠ making, and some percentage of 4♠ down one, though I'm not sure anything more than 4♠ making for both sides is right. I agree with Sven, I don't see how declarer can make five diamond tricks given the way he played the diamonds he's already played.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2016-February-15, 11:42
Reason for edit: Correcting my earlier erroneous correction

[barmar]

I'm closing this thread because http://www.bridgebas...76-revoke-acbl/ is a duplicate (with better formatting).