[blml] Revoke established?

[Manuela Mandache]

> > 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 withdrawn and the play corrected under Law 45D.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.
>

I do agree on the *interpretation* of L45D, but what it *says* is
'If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name[...]'
There is no precision about what declarer *did* name - another card or no card
at all. I'm playing devil's advocate, there are some little words missing in
the law - the defenders should be authorised to substitute played cards only if
the card declarer calls from dummy is not the one dummy 'placed in played
position' all by himself.

As to whether I contradict myself on the ethics, well, should I have used
'immoral'? Some days ago, there have been postings on 'active ethics'.

Cheers,

Manuela