	T765 Q943 JT975
KQJ 8532 JT6 KQ4		984 QJ7 K85 A863
	A32 AKT964 A72 2

Dealer: West Vul: Both MP Scoring

West
Pass
Pass

North
Pass
Pass

East
Pass
Pass

South
1

Debate on Revoke Penalty

Rotated to South declarer: originally board: 26

West led a top spade and declarer allowed it to win.
The next spade declarer won with the A.
Three rounds of hearts were played, East winning the third.
East continued with a spade and Declarer failed to follow suit, discarding 2.
West won the J and tried the K.
When from dummy was called a club, revoke was established.
Somehow-void-in-clubs declarer ruffed and drew West's last trump.

The 7 was led towards dummy's Q, won by East's K.
East exited with a club and declarer ruffed.

From hand, declarer led the 2, won by dummy's T.
If declarer had discarded dummy's 4th spade to previous trump plays, the 2 (somehow surviving 3 rounds of spades) would have won and in most opinions, a two trick penalty would have been due.

One non-offender was of the opinion that while the T won the fourth round of spades, the card which should have been played to the revoke trick was instrumental and essential to winning a subsequent trick (no dummy entry, rational defender play an entitlement).
With declarer on lead with a 'surviving 3 rounds of spades' 2, retaining the redundant T as subterfuge or camouflage or cover seemed to a non-offender a ridiculous qualifying necessity.
Was the dummy really 'the' hand in which the trick was won? Absent entries to the 'winning' T?

The director was not convinced by the argument and did not award a 2nd penalty trick as might have been due via the ACBL revoke section.

An appeals committee was offered and declined.

	QJT43
965		K8
	A72

Hypothetical Diamond Position Adjustment

With the

2 as entry to dummy for a spade finesse, East's

K can be finessed.
Would there have been an additional penalty trick in that instance?
There doesn't seem to be provision for such things clearly in the laws.

If we assign this original position in diamonds with the

2 as 'didn't win the trick' entry to dummy, declarer can discard a losing club to the trick one spade lead, finesse East's

K and later discard two losing spades on dummy's established diamonds (assuming East West each discard 1/ more spades)
In this case the offenders do no worse than a profitable 1 penalty trick (1

makes 5 less 1 = 4) OR a common result (makes 2)
It's unethical to revoke knowingly to try to enjoy a penalty that's either a reward or none at all.
Absent such intent - human error virtual certainty - in the case of someone "unwittingly" revoking and suddenly waking as "B or better player", non-offenders arguing via current laws have at best equity as compensation for the revoke.

The exceptional "revoke to twelfth trick" section is similar in ways.

T765
A32

Here was the original spade position.

T532
A76

If instead spades were originally thus, and to the 3rd round of spades "anything" had been called from dummy, a defender might choose the T and a 2nd penalty trick would be due.