[pran]

barmar, on 2016-March-25, 09:06, said:

How is this an example of 43B3? When did you violate any of the limitations in 43A?

Precisely, I did not violate any limitation as I no longer was Dummy when I first called attention to the revoke.

But my main intention with this post was to show the important difference between Law 64 A or B and Law 64 C. I believe I noticed some confusion here in a previous post?

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-March-25, 03:59, said:

It was obviously too late to claim the two trick revoke penalty for a 3♣+1 result, but as the legal correction period had still not expired we did receive the adjusted score for 3♣= which was an indisputable "equity" under Law 64C.

Did the TD take your word for it that the revoke had occurred or did (s)he also contact the opposing pair to check with them? If I were, for example, a visiting pair and therefore unreachable I might well feel somewhat aggrieved if the score was adjusted in that way against me if I happened to disagree with the events as reported by the opponents.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-29, 08:04, said:

Did the TD take your word for it that the revoke had occurred or did (s)he also contact the opposing pair to check with them? If I were, for example, a visiting pair and therefore unreachable I might well feel somewhat aggrieved if the score was adjusted in that way against me if I happened to disagree with the events as reported by the opponents.

The (alleged) fact was communicated through Internet to all affected players, and as there was no way the defense could win more that four tricks except by the revoke this fact was not disputed by anybody.