[Trinidad]

pran, on 2011-November-09, 08:11, said:

Quite true, except that what has already occurred is the possibility of an irregularity, not necessarily any irregularity as such.

That is a logical error. The irregularity -if one occurred- did already occur. The only thing is that we do not know yet whether it occurred. It did not possibly occur; it either did or it didn't. At the point of the question there is nothing to prevent anymore.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-09, 16:51, said:

That is a logical error. The irregularity -if one occurred- did already occur. The only thing is that we do not know yet whether it occurred.

Schrödinger's revoke?

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-09, 16:51, said:

That is a logical error. The irregularity -if one occurred- did already occur. The only thing is that we do not know yet whether it occurred. It did not possibly occur; it either did or it didn't. At the point of the question there is nothing to prevent anymore.

Rik

Of course there is: Preventing the revoke from becoming established. (Resulting in an exposed card rather than an established revoke.)

[barmar]

Where does it say that "becoming established" is an irregularity?

[blackshoe]

If there's an irregularity involved in a revoke becoming established, it must be in the action that causes the revoke to become established. Since all those actions are legal, I can't see an irregularity in it.

[barmar]

The closest that comes is 62A, "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." But it's not an irregularity to fail to correct because you're unaware.

You violate 62A if partner asks, you find a card in the suit, but don't correct the revoke.