[blml] Revoke established?

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Manuela Mandache" <mandache at free.fr>
To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established?


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?

The issue is whether declarer corrected his revoke before his side played to
the current trick.

The given fact is that dummy detached a card after rho led and put it in a
played position.  That the card must be withdrawn [L45D]   does not make it
nonplayed, nor that dummy did so illegally [L45B, as without instruction]
does not make the card nonplayed.  The card was played- by dummy, [it was
intended to be played no less] and it was played before the revoke was
corrected.  Therefore the revoke was established L63A1 /A2.
###



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?

###
45D specifies that dummy's card must be withdrawn and provides for LHO to
change his play - without penalty.    Conformance with law is something to
be sought after and admired, not denigrated as being unethical.

regards
roger pewick

Regards,

Manuela