[pran]

RSliwinski, on 2015-May-27, 06:53, said:

Sure, i am aware about that 47D but I still cannot understand that you can infer any description from how to correct a revoke at trick 12 from a simple statement in 62 D that a revoke on trick 12 must be corrected. The natural reading is to correct according to the rules for correcting (i.e. 62B) but this wrong when it comes to established revokes so you may be right that the word "correcting" in 62 D is not to be interpret that way. Anyway as long as it comes to non-established revokes we get the same result by using 62B with addition of 62D2 (which is just a clarification that 16 D apples).

OH come on! Do I really have to spell it out - dot the i's and cross the t's?

After a revoke in trick 12 the offender must withdraw the offending card he played and substitute his other remaining card to that trick.
Then, if his LHO has subsequently played any card to that trick he may withdraw it and substitute his other remaining card to that trick.
Then the same principle applies to offender's partner except that Law 62D2 must not be overlooked.
And finally the same principle applies to the fourth player if the revoke was a failure to lead a card required by Law, or from a rectification after an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

dburn, on 2015-May-26, 18:05, said:

Decent of South, in the circumstances. After all, he could just have scored it up and moved on. Had he done so, at what point would East-West have been unable to have the score changed?

campboy, on 2015-May-27, 01:30, said:

Once all four hands had been returned to the board (62D1). If the revoke had damaged NOS then they could still get equity restored up to the end of the correction period (64C), but that isn't the case here.

I disagree. The revoke was discovered before all four hands were returned to the board, but the director wasn't told about it when called to the table. 62D1 doesn't apply.

[axman]

RSliwinski, on 2015-May-27, 06:53, said:

Sure, i am aware about that 47D but I still cannot understand that you can infer any description from how to correct a revoke at trick 12 from a simple statement in 62 D that a revoke on trick 12 must be corrected. The natural reading is to correct according to the rules for correcting (i.e. 62B) but this wrong when it comes to established revokes so you may be right that the word "correcting" in 62 D is not to be interpret that way. Anyway as long as it comes to non-established revokes we get the same result by using 62B with addition of 62D2 (which is just a clarification that 16 D apples).

Some consternation has arisen with respect to dealing with a T12 revoke that has been established. Having suffered from such a situation on 2/4/1998 when holding two aces- one of them trump, and electing to revoke with the trump at T12 I’ll offer a word or two.

It has been argued that 62D but not 62B applies. Well, it is both that apply; yet it is a dubious undertaking. Why dubious? In this case the law 62D specifies the revoke be corrected. L62 specifies what to do. And what does it specify? That revoker L62B1 withdraw the revoke card and it becomes a PC; plus he substitute L62B a legal card. It seems silly to point out that revoker's only card not belonging to a trick is his PC- but that is indeed the case. Irrespective of following suit or not that PC is the only legal card revoker can substitute to T12- if L59 has anything to say to the matter.

Some believe we ought to pursue lawlessness, but I do not count myself among them- as my fundamental belief is that the only way to obtain good law is to rigorously abide by the law we got.

[barmar]

I think it's pretty obvious what the revoker has to do, and that declarer is allowed to change his play from dummy after revoker changes his cards.

How about revoker's partner? The withdrawn card should be UI to him, so he shouldn't be allowed to base his choice of what to play on the corrected T12 on knowing his partner has that card, unless other information (e.g. the bidding or earlier play in the suit) has made it very likely.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Decent of South, in the circumstances. After all, he could just have scored it up and moved on. Had he done so, at what point would East-West have been unable to have the score changed?

Is it merely "decent", or South's obligation to give back that trick?


79A2: 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.


We are talking here about a trick that could not be lost by the defense by any legal play of the cards, and which will not be lost of the revoke penalty in the book is applied either. You can say that his side did in fact win the trick (after an illegal play by East), and the hand was played to the end so no concessions happened -- but I personally would feel awkward about accepting this trick, and in fact would think South a complete cad, if perhaps not quite a cheat, if he hurried on to the next board to keep this trick.

[blackshoe]

Yes, it would be terrible of South to attempt to conceal an infraction by East.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-28, 04:11, said:

Yes, it would be terrible of South to attempt to conceal an infraction by East.

Maybe not; but it would be terrible of me to do so in this case.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-28, 07:36, said:

Maybe not; but it would be terrible of me to do so in this case.

That strikes me as personal opinion, outside the law.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-28, 09:16, said:

That strikes me as personal opinion, outside the law.

That is exactly what it is. My personal opinion of myself is important to me.

I would not be violating any law by either calling attention or not calling attention to the infraction by my RHO.