[blml] Revoke then concede (old laws)

[Peter Eidt]

From: "David Grabiner" 
> Under the old Laws, the penalty for a revoke is one or two tricks, but
> the penalty may not be determined until the hand is played out.  If
> there is a claim or concession, the hand is not played out.  If the
> revoking side claims and the penalty can either be one trick or two on
> normal plays, it should obviously be two.  But what if the
> non-revoking side terminates play with a concession, and the conceded
> trick might or might not be won by the revoker?
> 
> For example, clubs are trump, the lead is in dummy, everyone knows the
> DJ is high, and declarer revoked by not playing the SA on a previous
> spade trick: 
> -
> AQx
> -
> -
>
> -               x
> KJx          x
> -               x
> -               -
>
> A
> -
> J
> K
> 
> If declarer claims and does not say, "HA pitching the SA, ruff H, and
> DJ", then it is logical for him to pitch the DJ on the HA, or ruff the
> first heart, so the penalty is two tricks.  (This is what happened at
> the table.)
> 
> But suppose that instead West (who didn't know about the revoke, and
> thus believes that declarer has the CK and both diamonds) concedes the
> last three tricks, declarer accepts the concession, and then the
> revoke comes to light.  Do you still impose the two-trick penalty, on
> the grounds that declarer's acceptance of the concession, like a
> claim, denies him the benefit of the doubt for his own infraction?

yes, sure.

Law 63 A3:
"A revoke becomes established:
when a member of the offending side [...] acquiesces in a [...] 
concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand (or in any other
fashion)."

And as long as the (revoking) offender does not actively prevents
the card, that might establish a second-trick-penalty, from winning
a trick, he won't get the benefit of the doubt.