Join Bridge Winners
Claim requiring a future revoke

In a 3 card ending declarer claims the rest of the tricks.     The defense challenges this claim, believing they have a trick.

 

In front of the director, to demonstrate their point, the defense leads a trick,  ruffed in dummy, over ruffed by the defense.   The declarer, in front of the director, proceeds to make yet another over ruff, instead of following suit.    The director states, "you have to follow suit"  and awards the defense the trick.

 

So the quandary...   If declarer had not claimed, declarer would have revoked, would have won the revoke trick, and would have scored at least two more tricks, giving a 2 trick penalty.   So in essence, declarer is gaining from her errant claim by avoiding a more serious revoke penalty.

I could not bring myself to assign the greater penalty, but had a good laugh, ruling instead that play had stopped.

54 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top