[chrism]

West is on opening lead against 3♦; East has tried to lead ♠3 out of turn, and South has declined to accept the lead, instead instructing West to lead a spade (East duly picking up his ♠3).

Unfortunately West, possibly a little dazed after the fourth cherry brandy, has the ♠A in with his clubs and the ♣A in with his spades (aided by the remarkable similarity between these cards in the special decks that the club is using to promote an upcoming tournament). He leads the ♣A; nobody at the table notices the difference as declarer calls a low spade from dummy, East plays the ♠3, and declarer (void in spades but not clubs) ruffs with the ♦7. Declarer now leads a low club on which West plays the ♠A. At this point his partner starts to ask "no clubs partner ... er, didn't you already play that card to the first trick?".

The director, an Armenian who has taken to the job in the vain hope of escaping his uncanny run of bad luck, is called on to deliver his second ruling (so far) during this board.

"Strange hand", muses the Senior Kibitzer. "All four hands revoked at trick one".

How should the director rule?

[manudude03]

Assuming there is nothing wrong with the board itself, avg+ for both sides since East and West both have the ♠A

edit: Assuming you meant West produced the ace of spades, then it's a lot tougher and I will defer to someone more experienced.

[chrism]

manudude03, on 2015-January-26, 18:23, said:

Assuming there is nothing wrong with the board itself, avg+ for both sides since East and West both have the ♠A

edit: Assuming you meant West produced the ace of spades, then it's a lot tougher and I will defer to someone more experienced.

Thanks. Typo fixed.

[RMB1]

I would be sorely tempted to put ♠A on the table as the quitted card from trick one and put the ♣A face up as the card played to trick two and instruct play to continue.

Otherwise ...
♣A is a revoke and was established by the subsequent play of ♠A.
Declarer's play at trick one was a revoke and was established by the play of small ♣.
The other plays to trick one were revokes and were established by the plays to trick two.
None of the revokes at trick one can be corrected and the trick remains as played, declarer played a trump, so he wins the trick. There is no revoke penalty/rectification, both sides revoked (Law 64B7).

Declarer won trick one, so his lead to trick two appears to be legal.
The ♠A is a revoke at trick two, and can be corrected, ♠A becomes a penalty card. Play continues, the only rectification relate to the ♠A as a penalty card.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2015-January-27, 02:06, said:

I would be sorely tempted to put ♠A on the table as the quitted card from trick one and put the ♣A face up as the card played to trick two and instruct play to continue.

Otherwise ...
♣A is a revoke and was established by the subsequent play of ♠A.
Declarer's play at trick one was a revoke and was established by the play of small ♣.
The other plays to trick one were revokes and were established by the plays to trick two.
None of the revokes at trick one can be corrected and the trick remains as played, declarer played a trump, so he wins the trick. There is no revoke penalty/rectification, both sides revoked (Law 64B7).

Declarer won trick one, so his lead to trick two appears to be legal.
The ♠A is a revoke at trick two, and can be corrected, ♠A becomes a penalty card. Play continues, the only rectification relate to the ♠A as a penalty card.

Correct - except: The Director must apply Law 64C and establish the most likely result on the board had there been no irregularity other than the opening lead out of turn.

I.e. He shall judge the most likely result with West leading his ♠A and then play continuing with West playing his ♣A to trick two.

So your temptation gives the correct result!

[chrism]

pran, on 2015-January-27, 03:44, said:

Correct - except: The Director must apply Law 64C and establish the most likely result on the board had there been no irregularity other than the opening lead out of turn.

I.e. He shall judge the most likely result with West leading his ♠A and then play continuing with West playing his ♣A to trick two.

So your temptation gives the correct result!

Quote

64 C When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

In this case both sides are offending (unless we judge that the two black Aces look so similar that it is the director's fault for using that deck) so I don't see how 64C applies. I think that Robin's first temptation is a good practical and equitable solution that has no basis in the Laws.

Incidentally, the black-Ace confusion has its origins in real life (sorry to disappoint, but the rest was fiction). An entire ACBL district had a rash of revokes at sectional and regional tournaments when using badly designed decks promoting an upcoming NABC. Of course, those decks were quickly withdrawn.

[pran]

chrism, on 2015-January-27, 08:10, said:

In this case both sides are offending (unless we judge that the two black Aces look so similar that it is the director's fault for using that deck) so I don't see how 64C applies. I think that Robin's first temptation is a good practical and equitable solution that has no basis in the Laws.

Incidentally, the black-Ace confusion has its origins in real life (sorry to disappoint, but the rest was fiction). An entire ACBL district had a rash of revokes at sectional and regional tournaments when using badly designed decks promoting an upcoming NABC. Of course, those decks were quickly withdrawn.

As so often you have to consult WBFLC minutes for the full answer.

There is a minute which states that when both sides have revoked on the same board then the Director shall adjust the result to establish equity for both sides. (I am too lazy to look it up now.)

[Vampyr]

Have the WBFLC put the minutes relating to application of law into a single online document yet?

[axman]

chrism, on 2015-January-26, 18:14, said:

West is on opening lead against 3♦; East has tried to lead ♠3 out of turn, and South has declined to accept the lead, instead instructing West to lead a spade (East duly picking up his ♠3).

Unfortunately West, possibly a little dazed after the fourth cherry brandy, has the ♠A in with his clubs and the ♣A in with his spades (aided by the remarkable similarity between these cards in the special decks that the club is using to promote an upcoming tournament). He leads the ♣A; nobody at the table notices the difference as declarer calls a low spade from dummy, East plays the ♠3, and declarer (void in spades but not clubs) ruffs with the ♦7. Declarer now leads a low club on which West plays the ♠A. At this point his partner starts to ask "no clubs partner ... er, didn't you already play that card to the first trick?".

The director, an Armenian who has taken to the job in the vain hope of escaping his uncanny run of bad luck, is called on to deliver his second ruling (so far) during this board.

"Strange hand", muses the Senior Kibitzer. "All four hands revoked at trick one".

How should the director rule?

This may be relevant:

L84C. Player’s Option
If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.

[barmar]

axman, on 2015-January-28, 14:54, said:

This may be relevant:

L84C. Player’s Option
If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.

Are you suggesting Director Error, since the TD didn't ensure that West led a spade as instructed?

[chrism]

barmar, on 2015-January-28, 15:08, said:

Are you suggesting Director Error, since the TD didn't ensure that West led a spade as instructed?

If so, that would apply to any failure to comply with a lead restriction when able to do so. It's an interesting reading, but I doubt the TD's responsibility should extend to looking at the leader's hand, though I would have to work hard to weasel the interpretation I would like from the concept of "implementing" the instruction to lead a spade. ACtually, the instruction should be "lead a spade if you can" or something similar, and I normally use that form of words; leading any card would seem to be an implementation of that instruction, though possibly an erroneous one.

[chrism]

Vampyr, on 2015-January-27, 10:38, said:

Have the WBFLC put the minutes relating to application of law into a single online document yet?

I have not found one, and searching through all the PDFs continues to be a pain.