Almost Established revoke
This has happened a couple of times recently.
Player has revoked on a trick that declarer won. Declarer leads to the next trick, at which point revoker goes "oh no I've revoked". Revoker's partner nevertheless plays a card to the next trick (after attention has been drawn to it).
62A (along with 63A1) makes it clear that the revoke must be corrected.
Suppose Declarer elects to change his card played to the revoke trick, but not his lead to the next trick. Can the next player (revoker's partner) still withdraw his (already played) card? I'm unclear whether "in rotation" would carry on to the next trick.
This can get very messy. If declarer elects to change the lead to the next trick this could cause revoker's partner's card to itself be a revoke. And as to what happens if revoker ends up winning the trick when the revoke is corrected...
Comments
I would certainly apply 62C2 in this situation, allowing offender's partner to withdraw the card if the lead to the following trick is changed. However since the withdrawn card would be a major penalty card, it would only alter the outcome if the led suit is changed.
I also think that Law 47D would cover it.
"After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn....and another card substituted." The reference to 62C2 would also apply and the card would become a major penalty card.
I think that 63A1 will take priority due to the phrase "any play (legal or illegal) establishes the revoke" and play continues.
The NOS is going to get one trick if they win another (unless some rare things happen) and there is still 64C.
If we do not go this way then life becomes complicated depending on who led to the last trick and who won the trick with the revoke. In general:
Revoker changes his card (which becomes a MPC). If Declarer does not withdraw any of the cards that he may have played after the revoke (he may have won the trick, playing after the revoker) then that is the end of the matter. If declarer changes the card he played to the next trick then revoker's partner may change his card played to the next trick (said card withdrawn also becoming a MPC) (note that the law says 'any card they may have played' so allows for more than one.)
Life is more interesting if declarer does NOT win the trick. He withdraws his card, the revoker's partner withdraws HIS card (which is now a MPC). the revoker is on lead (also with a MPC) and declarer can either compel him to lead the suit his partner played to declarer's aborted lead, forbid him from doing so, or ask him to make his natural lead etc. It is possible that neither the declarer nor the revoker is on lead - e.g. if declarer now decides to duck in both hands or let dummy win the trick once he knows that his RHO still had a card in the suit led.
Simple - really.
I think that 62A1 takes priority
LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE
A. Revoke Must Be Corrected
A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes established.
I think 63A1 applies where attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.
Therefore we go back correct the revoke with the withdrawn card becoming a major penalty card. Declarer can change his/her card or dummy's card played after the revoke card. If declarer changes a card played to the revoke trick so may the offender's partner, if played after the card so changed, but in the meanwhile the offender's partner has created another major penalty card by the card they played to the next trick after attention was drawn to the revoke so if this were a legal play to the revoke trick this would be the only card to which he/she could change and the original card played to the revoke trick would become a major penalty card. If he/she could not legally substitute the penalty card then any change would result in he/she having two major penalty cards.
From this point on we just apply the laws relating to major penalty cards whilst reminding the defenders that knowledge of any withdrawn card by declarer is unauthorised information to them
Before replying to this, I asked the secretary of the WBFLC and he said:
"The wording of 62A was changed for the 2017 Laws with the scenario you describe specifically in mind. The "...must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before..." means that even if someone does take an action subsequent to attention being drawn, we still correct the revoke."
I'm glad to note that is in line with what I would have thought.
OK - but as noted, life becomes complicated. =)
I just don't get it. If offender's partner has played to the next trick I would have thought the revoke has been established.
elizabeth