Help
Table Result 4♥-1 Lead K♠.
"'O kestuns", mumbled RR, East, as West led on the above hand from the North London Bridge Club Christmas Party. The rabbit was busy scoffing his third treacle tart which Molly the Mule insisted on bringing each year despite its high sugar content. MM, North had an equally disgusting takeout double (four hearts and rule of 19, partner), and SB, South, bid game, not trusting Molly's judgement if he bid only 3H. ChCh had led the king of spades, for count, and RR immediately played the nine. It was clear to ChCh that RR had a singleton mainly from the speed of his play and he continued with the queen of spades. RR, whose three of spades had got stuck to the nine of spades with the treacle, thought South must have the ace and ruffed this low, over-ruffed by SB, who now advanced the jack of hearts. ChCh was on the ball, and did not call the TD to "un-establish" the revoke, but also took more than a few seconds to play low, commenting "not thinking about this trick", to get himself off the hook later. SB rose with the king, and RR won and had to guess which minor to switch to. Surprisingly he got it right and led the ten of clubs. The defence took two clubs, two trumps and the ace of spades, but had to give up one trick for the revoke, so the contract was one off.
"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" summoned SB, livid with rage and frothing at the mouth, as he had by now discovered the revoke. "West breached 72B3: A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. Note that it says "as by", which we all know by now encompasses anything, including failing to call the TD when noticing it. An MPC for East would have been fatal, which would have been the case if West had not concealed the revoke. And West also breached 73D1 by breaking tempo when the J♥ was led". He quoted: "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."
OO had arrived and ChCh had his say. "There was no obligation on me to stop the revoke becoming established", he began. "72B2 states: In general there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side." He continued:"And I had a demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT, in that I had to work out whether it was better to call the TD and correct the revoke, which I obviously knew about. I worked out that the MPC would be catastrophic and that declarer would be able to play one round of trumps and then revert to diamonds, making the contract. Under 73E2, the TD can only adjust if there was no demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT and here there was." "So, up yours, SB", he concluded.
"Well, the revoke did not gain at all and I don't think that I can go back to that point now", said OO. "I should have been called at the time and it would not have been established and the contract would indeed have made. And if there had been no revoke, the contract would surely have gone one down. And the revoke had no effect whatsoever on the success or otherwise of the contract, which could always be made on the spade continuation."
"How could I have known to do that, you cretin?", exploded SB. "I suggest you go on one of those excellent EBU courses to bone up on the laws." "And RR could have been aware that eating treacle tart could cause two cards to stick together, causing a revoke which would not be noticed by declarer and that this could well damage the non-offending side," he rather fancifully concluded.
How do you rule?
