[sanst]

---

N leads ♠7, via ♠K for declarer's ace, who plays the queen and the 6, ♦3 in E and ♦K from S. Declarer turns to S, says he wants to speak with her about this action later on. N interferes and then the declarer asks S what 2♠ means if it isn't natural. She answers 'strong". Next the declarer asks N wether it can be a doubleton and tells him that he should have alerted the bid. Then, and not before, he calls the playing director, who seems to have heard him, but doesn't come to the table. Now the initiative moves to N who states that everybody knows how things are, that they should play on and the director would come later. The declarer agrees and after the play the director is told about the 2♠ bid, but not about the revoke. He decides that the result stands (4♦x -1). Only much later W realises that the director is not told about the revoke. He now wants the result corrected. What should be the decision?
If the director heard but didn't answer the call, I would decide it's a director's error, and treat both sides as non offending. In that case, would you give EW 4♦x made? If the director had come, the revoke would have been corrected, so W would only have lost two clubs and a heart. Or would you change it to 4♦x +1, since the offending side has played in the next trick. Can EW keep their score, or would you change that too? Would it also be a director's error if he didn't investigate properly? Those questions about the 2♠ bid could (or should?) have made him aware that there was something strange about it.

[campboy]

How late is "much later"? While it is too late to get the transferred tricks, it sounds like EW are still in time to get an adjusted score to restore equity (4♦x=) under law 64C.

Quote

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

(The score should be adjusted for both sides. Director's error is when "a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect" (Law 82C); it doesn't cover failing to answer a TD call.)

[dburn]

Maybe West could simply have asked South whether or not she had any spades.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2015-May-26, 12:58, said:

…he [declarer] calls the playing director, who seems to have heard him, but doesn't come to the table. Now the initiative moves to N who states that everybody knows how things are, that they should play on and the director would come later. The declarer agrees and after the play the director is told about the 2♠ bid, but not about the revoke.

Quote

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Both sides have violated this law. PP to both sides.

[barmar]

Why did declarer ask South what his 2♠ meant? He should ask North, unless they're playing with screens.

I don't think 64C is relevant to the ruling here. It says "insufficiently compensated by this Law". But the problems in this situation are not related to the rectifications in Law 64, but due to the director not responding to the call and the players continuing to play. Any rectifications that result from those are not subject to the provision in 64C.

[lamford]

In my view there was director error originally, pretty much whatever he was told by the players. If, after play was over, he was told that South doubled 1D and then bid 2S on a doubleton, not alerted, he should have examined the South hand and saw that South did not have a doubleton spade. He might have thought to ask "Why do you think South had a doubleton spade?". The revoke would then come to light. I recently failed to find out all the facts as TD at a local club, and this is similar. We restore equity for the revoke, but do not give an additional penalty for the revoke, so the score is, I think, adjusted to 4Dx= for both sides. Always assuming that the protest is within the correction period.