[blml] Comments - when is a revoke a revoke?

[Wayne Burrows]

Ficticious story - based on fact ...

I don't have the exact auction.  Hearts were trumps (part-score) and
the defenders had bid and raised diamonds.

At some stage declarer led a diamond from the dummy (first round of
diamonds).  Declarer's RHO went in with the dA, declarer following and
LHO pitched the s5.

All players quit their tricks and then (infraction) RHO turned his dA
face up and said can I see those cards again.  Declarer protested "No
you have quit the trick".  LHO ignored declarers protestation and
faced his spade five.

After a noticable pause LHO realizes that he has not followed suit and
that he in fact has diamonds.

The director is called and allows the unestablished revoke to be
corrected.  The zonal authority has allowed defenders to ask each
other if they have any cards of the suit led when the do not follow.
Play continues.

Later the chief director makes a L12A1 ruling that the non-offenders
have not been compensated for the irregularities (both defenders
exposing their cards illegally).  And a subsequent L12C2 adjustment.
That adjustment being the most favourable result that was likely had
the irregularity (illegal exposure of quitted cards) not occurred.  He
rules that the most favourable result for the non-offenders is that
they would have received a 1-trick penalty for a revoke.

Comments on this ruling please.