Established revoke?

[jules101]

Just wanted to check whether a revoke is established by a claim?

 

 

Dummy

 

JTxxx

 

 

 

Axx

 

Hand

 

 

Declarer is South has pulled trump, etc. If they lose one trick in this suit they make their contract, lose two tricks and they are one off.

 

Declarer's only hope is one of their opponents has KQ doubleton.

 

Declarer plays the Ace, West follows with low card, and East doesn't follow suit.

 

 

Declarer concedes 2 tricks in this suit for one off.

 

 

THE OPPS AGREE TO THE CLAIM/CONCESSION

 

 

Law 63A3 applies here?

 

LAW 63 - Establishment of a revoke

 

A. Revoke Becomes Established

 

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

 

 

So the agreement to the concession means the revoke is established. Declarer is awarded a trick for the established revoke and makes her contract.

 

 

 

If, however, East realised they had revoked, and didn't agree to the concession, then East could correct her card.

 

In this situation the revoke would not have been established, and declarer is still one off.

 

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

[pran]

Yes, perfectly :rolleyes:

 

PS: Assuming of course that East's card in the suit was not a stiff high honor in which case there is only one loser anyway. Also West could have prevented the revoke from becoming established by asking about a possible revoke before agreeing to the claim/consesion.

 

Note however that once the first defender (East or West) has agreed to the claim/consession it is too late for the other defender to prevent the revoke from becoming established.

[jules101]

Thank you very much for confirming.

 

I was going to ask your last point as a follow up question, but you got there first.

 

I wonder why it's too late for East to "wake up" to their error after West agrees. [i bet there is a Law somewhere about that, but I don't know that one!]

 

 

#rookie-director-here and trying to get to grips with the laws.

[blackshoe]

Law 63A3: A revoke becomes established when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

The revoke is established when either player of the OS makes or accepts a claim or concession. Once it's established, it cannot be corrected (Law 63B).

[barmar]

Presumably the concession would state something like "West gets his two high cards in the suit" or "losing two <whatever the suit is>". Since West doesn't actually have those two cards, I hope he would not agree to the concession. I thought there was actually a Law saying you can't knowingly accept these tricks, but actually the Law says that the director can cancel the concession if you couldn't have lost the tricks through a normal line of play, and not noticing a revoke is normal.

[PeterAlan]

Presumably the concession would state something like "West gets his two high cards in the suit" or "losing two <whatever the suit is>". Since West doesn't actually have those two cards, I hope he would not agree to the concession. I thought there was actually a Law saying you can't knowingly accept these tricks, but actually the Law says that the director can cancel the concession if you couldn't have lost the tricks through a normal line of play, and not noticing a revoke is normal.

I think you're thinking of Law 79A2, which addresses a slightly different issue (but which could be applicable here):

 

LAW 79: TRICKS WON

A. Agreement on Tricks Won

1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.

2. 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.

[barmar]

That's the one.