campboy, on 2014-September-03, 02:54, said:
I agree with pran. But there are two possibilities:
1. Revoking side gained tricks by revoking. Then we adjust the score (64C, 81C3).
2. Revoking side did not gain, but their opponents missed out on the one- or two-trick transfer. Then it's too late to get that.
Perhaps the director you spoke to was thinking of the second case.
That's very clear, I think I understand. Does this seem like a fair ruling:
First I discover whether the revoking side gained tricks by revoking. If so, I adjust the score to restore equity (64C), even though the round had potentially ended (8B1, 64B5) and a spectator should not have drawn attention to any aspect of the game (76B5): “Considering that you all agree the revoke took place, I will adjust the score to restore equity to [the non-offending side]” (12B1, 12C1A, 76B4-5, 76C2 “Determinations of ABF as Regulating Authority” cited, but the players not the spectator
caused the irregularity, 81C3)
If the revoking side
did not gain tricks by revoking, it becomes relevant whether the round has ended (64B5). If the director has not yet called the move for the next round (8B1), the appropriate transfer of tricks to the non-offending side (64A, 81C3) is allowable. If the round has ended, there is no adjustment to the score (64B5).
To the kibitzer: “In future, please refrain from commenting to players, as the laws are clear that spectators should not draw attention to any aspect of the game” (76B5, 76C1).