[Cascade]

Quote

There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own
side

Law 9 A5

Quote

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or
the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

Law 79 A2

Defending you or your partner revokes. Subsequently declarer claims. Are you violating Law 79 A2 if you accept a trick that you could not or would not have won without the revoke?

What if the player has revoked twice? Which means that the non-revoker knows - and I mean seriously knows - that declarer has 0=5=3=6 distribution, or there has been a revoke. So definitely knows partner has revoked.

The contract has gone down two.

Without the revoke on the same defence the contract would have gone down one.

With the revoke penalty applied the contract would have made.

Can you accept -2 without violating Law 79 2A?

[WellSpyder]

I don't see the problem. You have already won the trick, so you aren't accepting a trick you can't win or accepting the score for the wrong number of tricks. Just because the trick will be taken away from you if the revoke is noticed doesn't mean you haven't won it at the point of time that is relevant for the claim.

[blackshoe]

I think the answer to Cascade's question is "yes". But if I was that certain my partner had revoked, I would ask the director to investigate.

[nige1]

Blackshoe and Wellspyder seem right according to the rules. Again, however, I feel that the rules should be changed.

IMO the "offending side" should own up -- in the normal case -- but, especially if they revoke twice -- or there's a claim. Of course, we can't be sure that they realized what they'd done but it's likely that a revoking pair would become aware. That's what the director should assume.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-20, 10:41, said:

I think the answer to Cascade's question is "yes". But if I was that certain my partner had revoked, I would ask the director to investigate.

Not sure what you are saying.

I asked essentially the same question in two ways which creates an ambiguity when you say "yes":

1. Are you violating Law 79 A2 if you accept a trick that you could not or would not have won without the revoke?

2. Can you accept -2 without violating Law 79 2A?

Law 72 A and B3 are relevant.

In A the chief object is to obtain a higher score while complying with the lawful procedures. At 44C the requirement to follow suit is to take precedence over all other requirements of the laws.

In B3 a player may not attempt to conceal an infraction.

It seems to me a player who folds his hand accepting a concession but knowing that either that player or the player's partner has revoked is concealing the infraction by not showing his hand. While the laws do not require a player to show their hand, not showing under the conditions stated that you know a revoke has occurred is a deliberate attempt to conceal that revoke.

[barmar]

72B3 appears to assume that you're aware of the earlier infraction at the time that you try to conceal it.

Not drawing attention to an infraction is not the same thing as concealing it. For instance, you revoke on trick 5. They lead the same suit on trick 6, and then you notice your revoke. You don't have to admit that you revoked, but you do have to follow suit this time. If an opponent notices that you just played a card of the suit you showed out of on the previous trick, they'll know that you revoked and they can call the TD. It will be an established revoke, and he should apply the appropriate rectification.

If you notice your revoke before you or partner plays to trick 6, you probably should own up to it -- it won't be an established revoke, so the penalty is likely to be less. But if it's too late to avoid establishing the revoke, you might as well just play normally and hope the opponents don't notice. This is entirely legal -- if the opponent isn't paying enough attention to notice that you just played a card that you couldn't have, that's their problem.

There is a problem with claims, since it doesn't require the opponents to face their hands. The 2017 Laws just added the requirement that the claimer face their hand. But if one of the other players revoked, they're still not required to admit to it when the claim occurs, and the claimer can't tell that there was an infraction that affects the claim.