Ruling requested

[Bob]

A situation cae up last night concerning a revoke, and I'm not sure if the director's ruling was correct. But I'm not sure what is, so I am soliciting expert advice. (ACBL game if it makes a difference)

The situation was as follows on trick 8:
Dummy had
S - J x x
H - x x (trump)
D - 8
C -

Declarer had
S - A K x x
H -
D - Q
C - K
Defenders had no red cards, and the K of C was high.

Dealer played the H8 from dummy and the KC from his hand. He then played the AS from his hand. He was informed that lead was in dummy, whereupon he said he had pulled the wrong card on the previous trick and put the QD on the table. At this point the director was called.
Director ruled that there was a one trick penalty. I can't see how this could be correct. It seems to me that the penalty should be either no or two tricks, depending on whether or not the revoke was established.
If the revoke was established, isn't the penalty two tricks, since declarer won the trick on which he revoked and a subsequent trick? If it is not established, declarer can play the proper QD on trick 8, pitch a low S from dummy on the KC and win the last four tricks with the high spades and the two trumps. (If the KC must be played on trick 8, he pitches the low spade from dummy on the QD (!).)
It would seem to me that the AS can not be considered led, since dummy had won the last trick. But declarer clearly intended it as the lead to the next trick. And is it possible for a defender to accept the lead out of turn, and thereby establish the revoke?
Opinions?

Interesting scoring on one hand last night: The two top N-S scores were for defeating 2S by two and by one trick. The top E-W scores were for defeating 2S three tricks.

Thanks

Bob Lumbert

[Fred.]

Post by Bob
A situation cae up last night concerning a revoke, and I'm not sure if the director's ruling was correct. But I'm not sure what is, so I am soliciting expert advice. (ACBL game if it makes a difference)
Dummy had
S - J x x
H - x x (trump)
D - 8
C -
Declarer had
S - A K x x
H -
D - Q
C - K
Defenders had no red cards, and the K of C was high.
Dealer played the H8 from dummy and the KC from his hand. He then played the AS from his hand. He was informed that lead was in dummy, whereupon he said he had pulled the wrong card on the previous trick and put the QD on the table. At this point the director was called.
Director ruled that there was a one trick penalty. I can't see how this could be correct. It seems to me that the penalty should be either no or two tricks, depending on whether or not the revoke was established.
If the revoke was established, isn't the penalty two tricks, since declarer won the trick on which he revoked and a subsequent trick? If it is not established, declarer can play the proper QD on trick 8, pitch a low S from dummy on the KC and win the last four tricks with the high spades and the two trumps. (If the KC must be played on trick 8, he pitches the low spade from dummy on the QD (!).)
It would seem to me that the AS can not be considered led, since dummy had won the last trick. But declarer clearly intended it as the lead to the next trick. And is it possible for a defender to accept the lead out of turn, and thereby establish the revoke?
Opinions?
Interesting scoring on one hand last night: The two top N-S scores were for defeating 2S by two and by one trick. The top E-W scores were for defeating 2S three tricks.
Thanks
Bob Lumbert

Playing the CK on the H8 led from dummy is not a revoke. Did
you mean the D8?

Fred.

[Travis Crump]

Post by Bob
A situation cae up last night concerning a revoke, and I'm not sure if the director's ruling was correct. But I'm not sure what is, so I am soliciting expert advice. (ACBL game if it makes a difference)
Dummy had
S - J x x
H - x x (trump)
D - 8
C -
Declarer had
S - A K x x
H -
D - Q
C - K
Defenders had no red cards, and the K of C was high.
Dealer played the D8 from dummy and the KC from his hand. He then played the AS from his hand. He was informed that lead was in dummy, whereupon he said he had pulled the wrong card on the previous trick and put the QD on the table. At this point the director was called.
Director ruled that there was a one trick penalty. I can't see how this could be correct. It seems to me that the penalty should be either no or two tricks, depending on whether or not the revoke was established.
If the revoke was established, isn't the penalty two tricks, since declarer won the trick on which he revoked and a subsequent trick?

Declarer didn't win the revoke trick, dummy did. The only way to win a
revoke trick is by ruffing. So one trick penalty is right if the revoke
is established. I won't take an opinion on whether or not the revoke was
established, but my gut says it was.

If it is not established, declarer can play the proper QD on trick 8,
pitch a low S from dummy on the KC and win the last four tricks with the
high spades and the two trumps. (If the KC must be played on trick 8, he
pitches the low spade from dummy on the QD (!).)

Post by Bob
It would seem to me that the AS can not be considered led, since dummy had won the last trick. But declarer clearly intended it as the lead to the next trick. And is it possible for a defender to accept the lead out of turn, and thereby establish the revoke?
Opinions?
Interesting scoring on one hand last night: The two top N-S scores were for defeating 2S by two and by one trick. The top E-W scores were for defeating 2S three tricks.
Thanks
Bob Lumbert

[Peter Smulders]

Post by Bob
A situation cae up last night concerning a revoke, and I'm not sure if the director's ruling was correct. But I'm not sure what is, so I am soliciting expert advice. (ACBL game if it makes a difference)
Dummy had
S - J x x
H - x x (trump)
D - 8
C -
Declarer had
S - A K x x
H -
D - Q
C - K
Defenders had no red cards, and the K of C was high.
Dealer played the H8 from dummy and the KC from his hand. He then
played the AS from his hand. He was informed that lead was in dummy,
whereupon he said he had pulled the wrong card on the previous trick
and put the QD on the table. At this point the director was called.
Director ruled that there was a one trick penalty. I can't see how
this could be correct. It seems to me that the penalty should be
either no or two tricks, depending on whether or not the revoke was
established. If the revoke was established, isn't the penalty two
tricks, since declarer won the trick on which he revoked and a
subsequent trick? If it is not established, declarer can play the
proper QD on trick 8, pitch a low S from dummy on the KC and win the
last four tricks with the high spades and the two trumps. (If the KC
must be played on trick 8, he pitches the low spade from dummy on the
QD (!).) It would seem to me that the AS can not be considered led,
since dummy had won the last trick. But declarer clearly intended it
as the lead to the next trick. And is it possible for a defender to
accept the lead out of turn, and thereby establish the revoke?
Opinions?

I think the director made the correct decision. When declarer lead the
AS from his hand the revoke became established,
(any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke), Law 63.
Since the KC did not win the trick on which the revoke occurred a
penalty of 1 trick is sufficient, see Law 64:
"a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law"

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Bob
A situation cae up last night concerning a revoke, and I'm not sure if the director's ruling was correct. But I'm not sure what is, so I am soliciting expert advice. (ACBL game if it makes a difference)
Dummy had
S - J x x
H - x x (trump)
D - 8
C -
Declarer had
S - A K x x
H -
D - Q
C - K
Defenders had no red cards, and the K of C was high.
Dealer played the H8 from dummy and the KC from his hand. He then played the AS from his hand. He was informed that lead was in dummy, whereupon he said he had pulled the wrong card on the previous trick and put the QD on the table. At this point the director was called.
Director ruled that there was a one trick penalty. I can't see how this could be correct. It seems to me that the penalty should be either no or two tricks, depending on whether or not the revoke was established.
If the revoke was established, isn't the penalty two tricks, since declarer won the trick on which he revoked and a subsequent trick? If it is not established, declarer can play the proper QD on trick 8, pitch a low S from dummy on the KC and win the last four tricks with the high spades and the two trumps. (If the KC must be played on trick 8, he pitches the low spade from dummy on the QD (!).)
It would seem to me that the AS can not be considered led, since dummy had won the last trick. But declarer clearly intended it as the lead to the next trick. And is it possible for a defender to accept the lead out of turn, and thereby establish the revoke?
Opinions?

Law 63(A)1 makes it clear the revoke is estblished:

A revoke becomes established:
1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following
trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).

Law 64(A)1 specifically states that a trick won by dummy is not a trick
won by declarer for the purpose of penalising a revoke so the penalty
should be applied according to Law 64(A)2:

When a revoke is established:
2. and 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 I think the director is correct.

[j***@portwood.co.uk]

Post by Bob
A situation cae up last night concerning a revoke, and I'm not sure if the director's ruling was correct. But I'm not sure what is, so I am soliciting expert advice. (ACBL game if it makes a difference)
Dummy had
S - J x x
H - x x (trump)
D - 8
C -
Declarer had
S - A K x x
H -
D - Q
C - K
Defenders had no red cards, and the K of C was high.
Dealer played the H8 from dummy and the KC from his hand. He then played the AS from his hand. He was informed that lead was in dummy, whereupon he said he had pulled the wrong card on the previous trick and put the QD on the table. At this point the director was called.
Director ruled that there was a one trick penalty. I can't see how this could be correct. It seems to me that the penalty should be either no or two tricks, depending on whether or not the revoke was established.
If the revoke was established, isn't the penalty two tricks, since declarer won the trick on which he revoked and a subsequent trick? If it is not established, declarer can play the proper QD on trick 8, pitch a low S from dummy on the KC and win the last four tricks with the high spades and the two trumps. (If the KC must be played on trick 8, he pitches the low spade from dummy on the QD (!).)
It would seem to me that the AS can not be considered led, since dummy had won the last trick. But declarer clearly intended it as the lead to the next trick. And is it possible for a defender to accept the lead out of turn, and thereby establish the revoke?
Opinions?
Interesting scoring on one hand last night: The two top N-S scores were for defeating 2S by two and by one trick. The top E-W scores were for defeating 2S three tricks.
Thanks
Bob Lumbert

The ruling with regard to the revoke is correct - it is established by declarer leading to the next trick (law 63A1) and since declarer did not win the trick (dummy did - see footnote to law 64) there is a 1-trick penalty (unless one of a few very rare things occur). The law states that a revoke is established: -

1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick
(any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke)

With regard to the lead by declarer - yes the defenders should call the director who will explain law 55 to them (either may ask for the lead to stand, but if there is a disagreement then declarer's LHO choice takes preference) Of course many defenders don't know this and just say "the lead is in dummy" or whatever.