Revoke
Under Law 61A ....failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law......................constitutes a revoke.
This means that if a defender with a penalty card leads or plays another card instead of the penalty card, he has committed a revoke.
Under Law 52 A he is not allowed to withdraw the card that he has played, i.e. he is not allowed to correct the revoke on his own initiative.
Under Law 52B 1(a), 'if a defender has led or played another card when required by law to play a penalty card, declarer may accept such lead or pay.
The question is, if the declarer accepts the card played by the offender, is the latter still considered to have revoked?
Comments
The second card is not a revoke. A revoke is a failure to play a card, not the card played instead.
If declarer accepts the play, the second card must be played (that's what "declarer may accept such lead or play" means).
Yes, even if declarer accepts the play it is a revoke (61A). In reality, law 52B1a gives declarer the option of choosing either card and have ing the other remain as a penalty card.
What is interesting here, is whether the revoke has been established. Under 63A it is not, but equally it cannot be corrected as required by 62A (otherwise declarer would be unable to accept it).
I suspect that equity but not automatic trick adjustement would apply, but I defer to minds far wiser than mine for that.
It's considered an established revoke once they play to the next trick as far as I can see, I don't see anything contradicting that. The only clash with 62A is that as Jeremy notes, the specific option to accept the incorrect play under law 59.
64 B 3 states specifically that there's no automatic trick adjustment in this case though, which makes sense, I don't see that declarer should be able to accept the play and then get a trick. If they're damaged there might still be a case for redress under 64C I suppose, that isn't ruled out. You'd want that option if it was too late to correct the failure to play a penalty card.
Agreed about 64B3 (how on earth did I forget that?)
I don't think 674C applies as the revoke is not established - which makes sense in that generally if you accept a wrong call or play (e.g. out of turn), you lose any right to remedy.
I still don't like the fact that 62A is in direct conflict with 52B1 (with no note as to which prevails) . Laws should be consistent!
I don't disagree there, there's the principle that the specific law on procedure after failure to play a penalty card takes precedence over the more general revoke law. That's clear enough but the drafting could be improved.
I agree that's a sensible approach, but it doesn't say that (specific over general) anywhere in the laws - nor is it a principle in English law (AFAIK).
The WBF Commentary says:
"Where two different laws appear to relate to the same factual situation, a law governing the
specific subject matter always overrides a law governing only general matters. "
Thanks, Gordon.