[blml] Revoke established?

[Manuela Mandache]

Selon Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>:

> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright
> > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer
> > discards.
> >
> > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the dummy
> > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows.
> >
> > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I think
> > I have revoked on the previous trick".
> >
> > Is the revoke established?
>
> My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to the next trick"
>
> But technically Law 45D saves Declarer; Dummy has placed in the played
> position a card (his only remaining club) that Declarer did not name.
>
> Actually Declarer has not named any card from Dummy for trick ten. The fact
> that the single club is the only card that can legally be played from Dummy
> to this trick is irrelevant; no card has yet been played from Dummy to trick
> ten!
>
> So No, the revoke is not established, Declarer takes back the card he
> discarded to trick nine and replaces it with a spade. And Law 62C then
> applies to trick ten.
>

Technically, this is perfectly right. Now imagine after trick eight the
following remaining cards in clubs
    6
J98   T7
    -
Playing NT, W won trick eight and leads CJ, dummy plays in tempo and without
being instructed by declarer, E follows with C7 and S discards. E realises he
blocked the colour, immediately calls the TD and takes advantage of L45D to
play CT instead of C7. It is utterly unethical, but the actual wording of the
law allows it! What would you do in such a case?

So, for Steve's case, I would first try to see if declarer had 'implicitely
played' (eg, he prepared the card to play from his hand for trick ten, or, when
asked, would admit having naturally left dummy play). In other words, is he
trying to unethically take advantage of L45D?

Regards,

Manuela