[affe82]

IGNORE - NOT THINKING.

in nt dummy holds

Qxxx

to

AKTx

Decl advances the A and LHO discards. Before declarer follows from table LHO admits to holding the suit in question and rules for a non-established revoke is envoked.

EDIT:
Decl now - wrongly - assumes LHO to have revoked from x and not Jx, enters in another suit (for some reason unexplained) and take a losing finesse to the Jx.

Is there damage? (I think yes).
Should there be an adjustment? (in case of a yes under which paragraph?).

sincerely

/fredrik

[BunnyGo]

affe82, on 2011-September-13, 13:32, said:

in nt dummy holds

Qxxx

to

AKTx

Decl advances the A and LHO discards. Before declarer follows from table LHO admits to holding the suit in question and rules for a non-established revoke is envoked.

Decl now - wrongly - assumes LHO to have revoked from x and not Jx, enters on Q and take a losing finesse to the Jx.

Is there damage? (I think yes).
Should there be an adjustment? (in case of a yes under which paragraph?).

sincerely

/fredrik

Quote

LAW 62 CORRECTION OF A REVOKE
A. Revoke Must Be Corrected
A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.
B. Correcting a Revoke
To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with any card.
1. Defender's Card
A card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender's unfaced hand.
2. Declarer's or Dummy's Card, Defender's Faced Card
The card may be replaced without penalty if it was played from declarer's or dummy's hand , or if it was a defender's faced card.
C. Subsequent Cards Played to Trick
1. By Non-offending Side
Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C).
2. By Partner of Offender
After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C).
D. Revoke on Trick Twelve
1. Must be Corrected
On the twelfth trick, a revoke, even if established, must be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board.
2. Offender's Partner Had Not Played to Trick Twelve
If a revoke by a defender occurred before it was the turn of his partner to play to the twelfth trick, and if offender's partner has cards of two suits, (penalty) offender's partner may not choose the play that could possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card.

It is pretty clear that there is no rectification for this. The declarer went wrong on his own.

Edit: I don't even agree with your suggestion that there was damage done.

[gordontd]

affe82, on 2011-September-13, 13:32, said:

Decl now - wrongly - assumes LHO to have revoked from x and not Jx,

Why?

[affe82]

Since it is more likely to miss one card in hand rather than two, especially if one of them is an honour.

[affe82]

i withdraw - not thinking.

sry!

[bluejak]

affe82, on 2011-September-13, 14:32, said:

Since it is more likely to miss one card in hand rather than two, especially if one of them is an honour.

Fair enough. And ignoring the simple point that he can test for it, it is a reasonable view, and in a different case I might agree with declarer's reasoning.

But since there is no infraction except for the unestablished revoke which has now been corrected there is no reason to adjust. Any "damage" is self-inflicted.

[shyams]

bluejak, on 2011-September-13, 17:21, said:

affe82, on 2011-September-13, 14:32, said:

Since it is more likely to miss one card in hand rather than two, especially if one of them is an honour.

Fair enough. And ignoring the simple point that he can test for it, it is a reasonable view, and in a different case I might agree with declarer's reasoning.

But since there is no infraction except for the unestablished revoke which has now been corrected there is no reason to adjust. Any "damage" is self-inflicted.

Suppose the suits had been ♦Qxxx opposite ♦AK9x. Declarer starts off by ♦x to ♦Q. Then (as described in the OP) West revoked, rectified immediately etc.

At the next trick, dummy's ♦x is led and (when East plays low), declarer plays the ♦9 (playing East for ♦JTxx)

Now what? Does the declarer get any relief if West started with ♦Jx?

[iviehoff]

affe82, on 2011-September-13, 14:32, said:

Since it is more likely to miss one card in hand rather than two, especially if one of them is an honour.

It is perhaps a touch more likely, but far from certain. After all, there are so many reasons you can revoke - mis-seeing what was led, a longer suit with acard of the wrong suit mis-sorted in with them, taking out an adjacent card to the one you intended. I don't think revoker is under any obligation to disclose why they revoked.

I therefore think this is the kind of inference you draw at your own risk.

It isn't like hesitating with a singleton. There are of course coups from deliberately revoking and correcting before established, but I think the likelihood in general of declarer thinking you must have a singleton because you revoked is so low I wouldn't consider the possibility of a Law 23 ruling from this.

[bluejak]

shyams, on 2011-September-14, 04:06, said:

Suppose the suits had been ♦Qxxx opposite ♦AK9x. Declarer starts off by ♦x to ♦Q. Then (as described in the OP) West revoked, rectified immediately etc.

At the next trick, dummy's ♦x is led and (when East plays low), declarer plays the ♦9 (playing East for ♦JTxx)

Now what? Does the declarer get any relief if West started with ♦Jx?

No, why?