Revoke and lead out of turn
South is declarer.
During the play West leads AC, and South revokes and ruffs. West immediately plays 3H, having expected to win the trick.
Director is then called.
I ruled that the revoke was not established. South replaced their ruff with a club, no other cards were replaced.
I then ruled that West had led out of turn and so had to lead their 3H, as it had become a major penalty card. They didn't object - after all this was their intention all along.
But was this part of my ruling correct? After all, in a way, they hadn't led out of turn. But, in that case, would they be allowed to change their lead? In which case, presumably there is UI.
Is it more complicated if South had revoked and discarded rather than ruffed? This might have given West information that they didn't want to lead the 3H after all, so were disadvantaged by the revoke. But is it still a lead out of turn, giving South the opportunity to accept the 3H?
Comments
Interesting.
62C1 applies here: Each member of the non-offending side may withdraw and return to his hand any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16C).
The suggestion is that it was never played, but it doesn't say that. Within the rules it becomes a major penalty card and there is no specific rule to say otherwise that I can see. In practice we would rely on Law 50: A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (my emphasis).
As far as the second part of your post is concerned, and assuming South notices and the revoke is corrected, then 16C1 (Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays): For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents.
In other words West is perfectly entitled to change his mind based on the knowledge of South's withdrawn play.
Well, the phrase "and return to their hand" in 16C1 does imply that these are not considered to be penalty cards. Although I suppose it could be more specific. In practise this is an area where the director should invoke the "unless the director designates otherwise" clause mentioned by Jeremy.
Law 62 talks about withdrawing cards but not about their immediate replacement, so if the 3H is withdrawn then that player hasn't played to that trick yet. So there's no lead out of turn. I suppose if a player opts not to withdraw the 3H it might be considered to be a lead out of turn. Although in the example given after the revoke is corrected West has won the trick and the 3H is no longer a lead out of turn.
So West could change their play without penalty. In practice they won't want to most of the time.