Revoke - equity not restored?
After winning trick 10 West, defending against a Spade contract by South leads his last Club, the 5.
South holds the last two trumps and the 7C.
There are no other Clubs or trumps left.
South ruffs the 5C (revoke) and lays down last trump and 7C.
West points out that declarer revoked on trick 11.
The Director awards a two trick transfer as in 64A1.
In this instance the Law appears to be an ass.
My understanding of the Laws regarding revokes are that they are intended to restore equity.
In this specific case there is no way that Declarer can fail to win the last three tricks unless he revokes and there is a subsequent transfer.
If the Laws intend that, because an offence has been committed, there must be a 'penalty' applied then it would seem logical for a one trick transfer in the above case. However, 64A2 effectively states that if the offending player does not win the revoked trick or any subsequent trick there is no transfer at the end of play. This strongly implies that the object of the Law is simply to restore equity.
So in this example, although there has been an offence (a revoke) and the offender won the revoked trick and a subsequent trick, the defenders have not been disadvantaged in any way whatsoever as there is no possibility of them winning any of the final three tricks after West leads 5C.
So the imposition of a two trick transfer in this case appears not to restore equity but to deprive declarer of at least one of the tricks to which he ought to be entitled (if not two).
In this instance is the Law fit for purpose?