Revoking in the trump suit – book ruling

This question was asked to: David Stevenson

Question

In the 1997 (Law 64 A.2 in the 1997 laws) laws there was compensation for revoking in trumps and later playing a trump and claiming a trick with a trump which would have lost if played in a timely manner. The current laws mean that the one trick penalty for revoking in the trump suit is cancelled by later winning a trick with that card. So revoking in trumps currently is not penalised (minus one, plus one) but revoking in a plain suit (minus one only) usually is. What would be your ruling / interpretation?

David Stevenson's Answer

There is no real change in the revoking laws between the 1997 laws and the 2007 laws. There is no difference between a revoke with a trump and a revoke with a plain suit. To be honest, I really do not understand your question. Putting it simply, if you win a trick with a revoking card, which effectively has to be a trump, the opposition get two tricks assuming your side wins a subsequent trick. If you revoke otherwise the opposition get one trick, assuming your side wins that or a subsequent trick. If despite these penalty tricks the opposition have been damaged they are given redress. This is the same in both sets of laws.

What do you think? Click here for David Stevenson's Answer

Questions are taken from the Bernard Magee Bridge forum which is available with BMB paid memberships.