[AndreSteff]

---

South plays 6 spades. The ♦9 is hidden beneath the 7.

Lead of a small diamond to the Ace. Declarer proceeds to ruff two diamonds in dummy and then claims his contract. While North gathers up his cards the ♦9 is revealed. What now?!

This was a much debated TD-exam question in Holland, of which I thought that finally one view had been universally accepted. But not so...

View 1: Applying Law 64C we allow declarer to embark on a different plan had the ♦9 not been hidden. Playing a diamond in trick two is now clearly ridiculous. Adjusted score: 50% of 6♠-2 and 50% of 6 ♠= since declarer has no way of knowing on which AKQ combination he can discard his losing diamond.

While this solution feels most like a result had no infraction occurred it has a flaw: the result of the ruling will differ according to the moment that the ♦9 is discovered. Had the 9 come into view on ruffing in trick two then declarer would have been down one.

View 2: We apply Law 64C to the moment of the revoke and not earlier: that South would never had played a diamond in trick 2 is irrelevant, more so as NS are the offenders here. So declarer loses a diamond and the Ace of spades.

What do you think?

[campboy]

I am of view 2. The infraction which leads to an adjusted score is the revoke, and the definition of damage in 12B1 is in terms of the expectation had the revoke not occurred.

This feels similar to the situation where a player has given MI because he has misunderstood his partner's call; we do not adjust on the basis of what might have happened had he understood it correctly but rather what might have happened had opponents been correctly informed despite the misunderstanding.

[bluejak]

I think view 2. If we have two viable conclusions do we not just give the benefit to the non-offenders?

I am sure we have discussed this previously. No?

[blackshoe]

If the ♦9 was hidden under the ♦7, how is it that it did not come to light when dummy played the 7 to trick 1?

[zenko]

Neither, by revoking declarer won a trick (i.e. he "ruffed") so the penalty is 2 tricks, not one, and the correct ruling is 6S -2.

[pran]

 zenko, on 2011-January-13, 10:55, said:

Neither, by revoking declarer won a trick (i.e. he "ruffed") so the penalty is 2 tricks, not one, and the correct ruling is 6S -2.

That was my first reaction, but then I realized that the revoke was in Dummy so the relevant law is (first) 64B3 and then 64C.
I fully agree on down one.

[AndreSteff]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-13, 10:17, said:

If the ♦9 was hidden under the ♦7, how is it that it did not come to light when dummy played the 7 to trick 1?

Because it was an exam question

[pran]

 AndreSteff, on 2011-January-13, 12:23, said:

Because it was an exam question

If I had been in charge of the exam there would have been only 12 cards in dummy, discovered towards end of play!

(It is irrelevant whether the thirteenth card is actually found or if the deficiency is just discovered, it will become clear that the missing card is a diamond.)

[iviehoff]

 pran, on 2011-January-13, 14:39, said:

(It is irrelevant whether the thirteenth card is actually found or if the deficiency is just discovered, it will become clear that the missing card is a diamond.)

Irrelevant in the sense that you arrive at 64C whatever. But in the stated case you get there via L14B1 which directs you to L67, from where, having found the right section, you are sent on to the revoke Laws. But in the case you mention, you get there rather quicker via L14B2 and L14B4.

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-13, 10:17, said:

If the ♦9 was hidden under the ♦7, how is it that it did not come to light when dummy played the 7 to trick 1?

Presumably because they were stuck together.

There's an old story about someone ruffing with a card stuck behind his trump, and the hidden card was a card in the suit led. He proceeded to ruff twice more in the suit. At the table it was ruled as three revokes, and since it happened before the law that subsequent revokes in the same suit are not penalised, it was very expensive. On appeal, since it was before the law that states that a concealed card cannot be a played card, it was ruled as no revoke at all, but rather two cards played. That changed the ownership of the defective trick, but on restoring the trump to hand there was no revoke.

[bluejak]

Back when I were a lad, ie about forty plus years ago, I was playing in an EBU event where there was a big row at the next table. Declarer had ♦xx opposite dummy's ♦x, which was hidden. He duly made his slam - which everyone else went off in - because, after losing a heart finesse, he cross-ruffed his diamonds, ruffing two in dummy then one in hand. According to the Chief TD of the day, Harold Franklin, dummy could not revoke, and the slam stood.

To say that the defence was incandescent with anger would be understating the case considerably.