[blml] Revoke established?

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache
> Selon Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>:
.............
> 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?

No, this is not what Law 45D says or how it is to be understood.

If Declarer calls a particular card and Dummy places a different card in the
"played position" then any player (not Dummy) can request that card to be
withdrawn and the play corrected under Law 45D.

But when Dummy places a card in the played position without declarer naming
any card to be played then RHO cannot first play his card to that trick and
then change this play unless Declarer eventually (within Law 45D) requests a
different card to be played from Dummy.

> 
> 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?

If Declarer in any way appears to having condoned the "play" of the single
club from Dummy then I too would rule that the card had been played (by
Declarer's consent) and that the revoke was established, but the way the
question was asked gave me the impression that he had not.

Regards Sven