Trans.: RE: [blml] Revoke established?

[Manuela Mandache]

Quoting Sinot Martin <Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com>:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org
> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
> > On Behalf Of Robin Barker
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 16:58
> > To: blml
> > Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established?
> >
> >
> > True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that
> it
> > does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that
> > declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club
> a
> > played card.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Martin Sinot
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > For a different purpose, L57C says that cards are not automatically
> > played.
> >
> > "A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same
> suit,
> > is not considered to be automatically played."
> >
> > Robin
> >
>
> You know that, and I know that, but loads of players don't seem to get
> this.
> Worse than that, if you wait patiently until declarer names the
> singleton,
> you get comments from declarer: "When are you going to play?" If you
> then
> say that you are waiting for declarer to play the singleton, they get
> irritated and tell you, "What should I play then instead of the
> singleton?"
> My experience is that when dummy plays a card without a command from
> declarer, it is usually a long standing habit of the pair. Therefore I
> would
> rule that declarer gave a silent command to play the singleton, hence
> the singleton be played, and the revoke established. Next time, dummy
> will think twice before playing cards on his own.
>

Arriving at the table, I might innocently ask 'Have you played from dummy?' I
guess that most of the time declarer's reaction would teach me everything I
need to know...

Best,

Manuela