I was called to a table by declarer who was playing 4S, where a defender has revoked twice.
First revoke: diamond led, defender ruffs in and wins trick.
Second revoke: heart led, defender ruffs in and wins trick.
Result: declarer goes two off.
NB. Defender DID win other tricks between the two revokes, but did not win any tricks subsequent to the second revoke.
The first part of the ruling was simple: one trick transferred for winning revoke trick, another for winning a subsequent trick. Then I may have got it wrong.
My overall ruling was to transfer two tricks to declarer, but having given it some more thought, I think I may have misunderstood law 64 B2.
At the time, I assumed that since she had ruffed on both occasions (ie. played the same suit on both revokes) then law 64 B2 meant there was no penalty for the second revoke.
The wording of 64 B2 seems a bit ambiguous but the definition of a revoke as "the play of a card of another suit..." makes me think that it is referring to the suit led.
So in the above scenario, should I have transferred 3 tricks to the non-offending side?
And had the offending side won a further trick, subsequent to her second revoke, would this have merited transferring 4 tricks?