Revoke

[otoj]

This is the situation:

Contract 3NT. West A, K, Q (on trick 3), West (defender) was on lead, East revoked, trick 4, West led the same suit again, now East realized the revoke and correct the revoke. Declarer won trick 4, after that East never win any trick (all tricks were won by West). The contract went down-1, tournament director adjusted the contract made. Was that a correct decision?

[gordontd]

It's hard to work out exactly what you say happened, but it sounds as though the revoke was established and should not have been corrected. When was the tournament director called?

 

Aside from winning the revoke trick, it does not matter which member of the partnership won the tricks.

[pran]

This is the situation:

Contract 3NT. West A, K, Q (on trick 3), West (defender) was on lead, East revoked, trick 4, West led the same suit again, now East realized the revoke and correct the revoke. Declarer won trick 4, after that East never win any trick (all tricks were won by West). The contract went down-1, tournament director adjusted the contract made. Was that a correct decision?

If this is an accurate description:

Contract 3NT in South

West led A, K, Q and small in the same suit, winning the first three tricks and declarer won the fourth.

East followed suit to the first two tricks, revoked on the third, discovered his revoke after West led to the fourth trick and at that time (incorrectly) corrected his revoke, the ruling is (Law 64A2):

 

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.

 

so yes, the director made the correct decision.

 

(The revoke should not have been corrected in this case, but as far as I can understand this made no difference.)

[axman]

If this is an accurate description:

Contract 3NT in South

West led A, K, Q and small in the same suit, winning the first three tricks and declarer won the fourth.

East followed suit to the first two tricks, revoked on the third, discovered his revoke after West led to the fourth trick and at that time (incorrectly) corrected his revoke, the ruling is (Law 64A2):

 

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.

 

so yes, the director made the correct decision.

 

(The revoke should not have been corrected in this case, but as far as I can understand this made no difference.)

 

 

Are you neglecting such things as L67, 57, & 49?

[pran]

If this is an accurate description:

Contract 3NT in South

West led A, K, Q and small in the same suit, winning the first three tricks and declarer won the fourth.

East followed suit to the first two tricks, revoked on the third, discovered his revoke after West led to the fourth trick and at that time (incorrectly) corrected his revoke, the ruling is (Law 64A2):

 

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.

 

so yes, the director made the correct decision.

 

(The revoke should not have been corrected in this case, but as far as I can understand this made no difference.)

 

 

Are you neglecting such things as L67, 57, & 49?

 

Honestly, provided my description is correct I completely fail to see how any of those laws can be relevant?

 

Can you identify any "defective trick" (Law 67), "premature lead or play by any player" (Law 57) or "exposure of a defender's card" (Law 49) except for the revoke which is completely handled in Laws 61 through 64?

[Finch]

This is the situation:

Contract 3NT. West A, K, Q (on trick 3), West (defender) was on lead, East revoked, trick 4, West led the same suit again, now East realized the revoke and correct the revoke. Declarer won trick 4, after that East never win any trick (all tricks were won by West). The contract went down-1, tournament director adjusted the contract made. Was that a correct decision?

 

I take this description to mean

- East revoked on trick 3

- West led the same suit to trick 4, to which East now followed suit.

 

I don't think it means that East tried to change the card he had played to trick 3 (although I agree it could be interpreted that way)