Simple revoke

[manudude03]

[hv=pc=n&s=st842hkq64da74ca5&w=s96ha72dkqt952cq6&n=s753hjt5dj86cjt94&e=sakqjh983d3ck8732&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)ppp&p=dkd6d3dah4h2hjh3hth8h6h7h5h9hqhadqd8c2d4d2djc3d7cjc7cac6hks6c4c8c5cqc9]399|300[/hv]

 

Northern Ireland

 

MPs scoring. South was in 1NT on the board above (pips approximate). At trick 9, East couldn't lose a trick if she tried, but elected to play it out and on trick 10, leads the ace of spades to which West discards a diamond and then follows suit again on trick 11. The result (before adjustment) was 1NT-1. How do you rule? If it matters, E/W are beginners and N/S are fairly experienced.

[aguahombre]

You are correct, it is simple. East, not West, won the trick of the revoke. It was then established. East/West donate a trick per the revoke penalty, upon conclusion of the play. N/S make 1NT.

[Vampyr]

L64A2. I am too lazy to type it out right now, but it stipulates that when there has been an established revoke, and the offending player did not win the revoke trick, the other side receives a one-trick penalty.

 

That much is clear; is there more to the story?

 

EDIT: Ah, aquahombre got there ahead of me -- must learn to type faster!

[aguahombre]

L64A2. I am too lazy to type it out right now, but it stipulates that when there has been an established revoke, and the offending player did not win the revoke trick, the other side receives a one-trick penalty.

 

That much is clear; is there more to the story?

 

EDIT: Ah, aquahombre got there ahead of me -- must learn to type faster!

Actually, there is more to the story. I probably would forego, however, the PP for East's violation of L90...unduly delaying the game by not just laying down AKQJ.

[Vampyr]

Actually, there is more to the story. I probably would forego, however, the PP for East's violation of L90...unduly delaying the game by not just laying down AKQJ.

 

Ah right, now I see that that is also why it was relevant that East was a beginner. I agree with you about a PP; in fact I think that after what happened, East has learnt his lesson!

[axman]

Actually, there is more to the story. I probably would forego, however, the PP for East's violation of L90...unduly delaying the game by not just laying down AKQJ.

 

Where in the facts does it say that EW took more than its share of the allotted time AND thereby was responsible for the the play otherwise extending into the next round?... conditions I think would be necessary to justify a PP for improper delay of game.

[iviehoff]

I have occasionally had revoking opponents say to me "but the revoke was completely irrelevant to anything", implicitly begging for mercy and suggesting I was terribly nasty to call the director to have the revoke penalty applied. But do not fall for such emotional blackmail, that is not a good reason to disapply the revoke penalty. I think it is good for EW to have the experience of paying the revoke penalty, so they realise that if you make the revoke you pay the penalty.

[mycroft]

I'd love for this to happen to my favourite "I'm never claiming again, because I once got a bad ruling" pairs. Really I would. I would even try to keep the smile off my face. "If it didn't matter, why didn't you claim?"