[swanway]

EBU

This incident happened recently at our local club. There was a disagreement about the ruling. Can you please help

East was declarer in 3NT. Halfway through the play South played the 8♠ West (dummy) discarded the 4♥ North also discarded. East (declarer) played the 6♥even though he had the 10♠. East now assuming that he had won the trick played the 6♦ South informed him that she had won the trick. Declarer wanted to change the 6♥and play the 10♠. South said he could not change the card because the revoke had been established when he played the 6♦. Declarer stated that he had not won the trick therefore the revoke was not established. He had only exposed a card and played and out of turn. We were not sure if declarer had established his revoke by playing the diamond.

Hope this is clear.

[pran]

 swanway, on 2013-November-29, 02:37, said:

EBU

This incident happened recently at our local club. There was a disagreement about the ruling. Can you please help

East was declarer in 3NT. Halfway through the play South played the 8♠ West (dummy) discarded the 4♥ North also discarded. East (declarer) played the 6♥even though he had the 10♠. East now assuming that he had won the trick played the 6♦ South informed him that she had won the trick. Declarer wanted to change the 6♥and play the 10♠. South said he could not change the card because the revoke had been established when he played the 6♦. Declarer stated that he had not won the trick therefore the revoke was not established. He had only exposed a card and played and out of turn. We were not sure if declarer had established his revoke by playing the diamond.

Hope this is clear.

Very Clear:

1: East revoked in playing his 6♥
2: East established his revoke by leading his 6♦ out of turn to the next trick (L63A1 applies to legal as well as illegal leads or plays)

South may accept this lead out of turn in which case play just continues.
or
South may refuse to accept the lead out of turn in which case East restores the 6♦ back to his hand and South leads to the next trick.

In either case one trick is transferred from declaring to defending side after end of play as offender did not win the revoke trick.

[Vampyr]

Srsly, why ask when the answers in the Law Book are clear?

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-29, 05:38, said:

Srsly, why ask when the answers in the Law Book are clear?

No insult intended against OP, but we must recognize that not everybody are comfortable navigating and understanding the Law book.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2013-November-29, 05:38, said:

Srsly, why ask when the answers in the Law Book are clear?

That's why it's a Simple Ruling.