[Hanoi5]

---

Declarer plays a small heart from hand to the J and Ace and then the Heart King in which she revokes. She plays a heart on the next trick and then notices the problem, calls the Director, who says the revoke has been established and to call him at the end; the declaring side won many tricks after the revoke so the Director gives one of those tricks to the defense, contract made instead of an overtrick.

The declaring side says there is no revoke for declarer. Then they claim there was no damage, so no trick should have been taken away. Finally they said the Director has discretionary powers which would allow him to let this hand/revoke unpunished because of there was no damage.

What can we tell them?

[barmar]

There's no such rule as "no revoke for declarer". I think they're confusing it with the rule that there are no penalty cards for declarer.

The TD permitted to transfer additional tricks if the normal revoke penalty doesn't restore equity, but he can't transfer fewer than the Law requires. The only exception to this comes from Law 81C5, which gives the Director the power

Quote

to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.

Note that the request has to come from the non-offensing side. In the above case, it was the offending side that seemed to be begging for mercy, and he's not authorized to waive the rectification.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on 2014-February-08, 22:03, said:

---

Declarer plays a small heart from hand to the J and Ace and then the Heart King in which she revokes. She plays a heart on the next trick and then notices the problem, calls the Director, who says the revoke has been established and to call him at the end; the declaring side won many tricks after the revoke so the Director gives one of those tricks to the defense, contract made instead of an overtrick.

The declaring side says there is no revoke for declarer. Then they claim there was no damage, so no trick should have been taken away. Finally they said the Director has discretionary powers which would allow him to let this hand/revoke unpunished because of there was no damage.

What can we tell them?

No revoke for declarer: Incorrect. Law 61A defines a revoke as "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 when able or .... (several options which aren't pertinent to this case)".
No damage, so no trick should have been taken away: incorrect. Law 64A pertains. Law 64C only applies if the non offending side was insufficiently compensated for damage caused, which is not the case here.
The Director has discretionary powers which would allow him to let this hand/revoke unpunished because of there was no damage: incorrect. Law 81B2 says the director is bound by the laws, and no law gives him that power. Also, Law 81C2 requires him to apply the relevant law to any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware within the correction period.*

The Director's ruling: Declarer revoked (Law 61A). The revoke was established by his lead from dummy to the next trick (Law 63A1 or 63A2, depending whether he called for a card or played it himself). The revoke trick was won by the partner (dummy) of the player who revoked (declarer), so one trick is transferred to the defenders after the play (Law 64A2). This ruling is correct.

Note: there are several circumstances in which no rectification is applied after an established revoke. These are delineated in Law 64B, and none of them apply to this case.

*Note 2: The director may, at his discretion, waive rectification for cause, upon the request of the non-offending side (Law 81C5). IOW, he can't waive rectification on his own, and he need not do so even if the NOS ask him to.

[gordontd]

Hanoi5, on 2014-February-08, 22:03, said:

What can we tell them?

To learn to follow suit. Not to quote laws incorrectly. Not to introduce irrelevancies into the discussion.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2014-February-08, 22:45, said:

There's no such rule as "no revoke for declarer". I think they're confusing it with the rule that there are no penalty cards for declarer.

Or confusing it with the rule that there is no rectification for a revoke by dummy.

[mycroft]

but of course, even on a revoke by dummy, the Director still has to determine if equity demands greater than the "no rectification" for the defenders.

Yes, I've had people try to bully me on this one (both ways).