[manudude03]

---

MPs scoring. West leads the ace of spades, which is ruffed by south. A diamond is played to the ace and a heart to the king and ace, East pitching a club. West now leads a small spade to the jack which south ruffs again. South now cashes the king of diamonds, and then leads their spade. West wins and returns the jack of hearts, East throws another club and south wins the queen and cashes the 9 (East throwing another club). A club is now led which West ruffs and leads their final trump on which south discards a club. West now claims with 3 winning spades and south turned up with another trump. With the play going as it did, the contract ended up -2.

The handviewer doesn't handle revokes too well, but hopefully you can follow the play. Anyway, how do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Ignoring the revokes for the moment, the claim looks like south ruffs the first spade and then leads either a diamond or a club and East gets the last two tricks. If this result is "down 2", then we look at the revokes.

The first two revokes were established, the first by South's lead to trick 2, the second by his lead to trick 5 (Law 63A1). The third revoke… did south agree to West's claim? If he didn't, the revoke is not established. If he did, it is.

Revoke 1 results in two tricks transferred to EW (Law 64A1). There is no rectification (yet) for the second revoke (Law 64B2). If the third revoke was established, one more trick is transferred to EW (Law 64A2). So NS is down either 4 or 5.

Because the second revoke in spades invokes Law 64C, the director should look at whether EW might have done better absent that revoke. That exercise is left to the reader.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-10, 19:03, said:

Because the second revoke in spades invokes Law 64C, the director should look at whether EW might have done better absent that revoke. That exercise is left to the reader.

I don't think declarer would have gone four down without the revoke so I don't think an adjustment using 64C is necessary. Agree with the rest of your analysis.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2016-November-11, 03:03, said:

I don't think declarer would have gone four down without the revoke so I don't think an adjustment using 64C is necessary. Agree with the rest of your analysis.

Maybe I didn't follow the actual table plays correctly, but it seems as if Declarer was down one or two (OP says two). 64C doesn't seem necessary to get to down four from down one (2 for the Spade revoke, 1 for the trump revoke)... or to down five if Declarer ended down 2.

But I think the defense can take seven tricks (1 Spade, 3 Hearts, 3 clubs) on likely lines with doubt going to the defense.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2016-November-10, 17:31, said:

The handviewer doesn't handle revokes too well

I wasn't aware that the hand-viewer handled them at all. But four down looks correct.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2016-November-11, 03:46, said:

Maybe I didn't follow the actual table plays correctly, but it seems as if Declarer was down one or two (OP says two). 64C doesn't seem necessary to get to down four from down one (2 for the Spade revoke, 1 for the trump revoke)... or to down five if Declarer ended down 2.

But I think the defense can take seven tricks (1 Spade, 3 Hearts, 3 clubs) on likely lines with doubt going to the defense.

He was down two as the play went. The rectification for the revoke makes that down four (and one more if it turns out the third revoke was established). Since he wouldn't have gone more than four down without the revoke 64C doesn't come into effect.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2016-November-11, 05:34, said:

He was down two as the play went. The rectification for the revoke makes that down four (and one more if it turns out the third revoke was established). Since he wouldn't have gone more than four down without the revoke 64C doesn't come into effect.

I think we actually agree on everything; but, in #3 above you didn't think he would go down four with normal play -- while now you say 'more than four'. That was what I was addressing.

[manudude03]

The director ruled down 5 as if South followed to the heart, it would have been down 3 (declarer winning 4 hearts and 2 diamonds) before the previous revoke penalty. I don't think I had ever seen a revoke in 2 suits in nearly 15 years of playing so was somewhat curious. Regarding the claim, what happened was that West was claiming the rest for down 3, South accepted it and exposed her hand which contained a heart which would have been impossible to lose hence the table result would have been down 2.

[weejonnie]

I am not sure but at the time when South revoked for the third time, the situation was that East West ALREADY had the two trick bonus as a result of the first revoke(s) and Equity has to be restored from that position.

So doesn't that mean another trick has to be transferred?

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2016-November-12, 14:10, said:

I am not sure but at the time when South revoked for the third time, the situation was that East West ALREADY had the two trick bonus as a result of the first revoke(s) and Equity has to be restored from that position.

So doesn't that mean another trick has to be transferred?

Law 64C starts "When, after any established revoke…" Thus, this law does not apply to the third revoke if it was not established.