[blml] Revoke established?

[Steve Wright]

In message <001001c69f6f$58b6a970$6400a8c0 at WINXP>, Sven Pran 
<svenpran at online.no> writes
>> On Behalf Of Sinot Martin
>> > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his
>> > single
>> > club in a played position. That is an essential and important
>> difference.
>> >
>> > Regards Sven
>>
>> 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.
>
>What gave you that impression? (That they have a convention)
>
>Regards Sven

The actual case at the table was dummy had a stiff KQ of clubs instead 
of the singleton. According to LHO, I said, "Yes", after dummy (without 
prompting) selected the queen and placed it (in tempo) in the played 
position.

I can't remember saying this, but I was deep in the think tank wondering 
why I had a spade still in my hand when according to my calculations it 
should have fallen on LHO spades when he ran the suit.

LHO was a friend and renown honest person, so I have no reason to doubt 
his observations. I ruled "Revoke established".

But it led to wondering what would have happened if I had not made a 
gesture to dummy.

Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank 
to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. (Broken suits such as 
King-Jack when the Queen has been played earlier are never automatically 
played; nor is the opening lead).

IMHO, looking at L45B/L45D, the letter of the law IMHO does support 
Sven's argument for "Not established" - But I'm uncomfortable with this.

I think that at the table I would rule that if declarer implicitly 
accepted dummy's action and then said "I think I have revoked" then I 
rule "Established". OTOH if declarer says immediately "Hang on a minute, 
I think I've revoked" as dummy plays the singleton I would rule "Not 
established".

I liken this to this issue of insufficient bid verses mechanical error. 
For example, LHO bids 1S. I intend to overcall 2H, but accidentally pull 
1H from the bidding box. In EBU-Land, a bid is made when it is "pulled 
from the box with intent". If, as the bid touches the table, RHO says, 
"That's insufficient", do you rule insufficient or mechanical error? I 
always rule that if RHO pounces then it is a mechanical error, but if he 
gives a reasonable pause and then says, then it is an insufficient bid.

Applying that philosophy to this situation ... if there is a pause after 
dummy's action then dummy's card is played and the revoke established. 
But if declarer immediately notices his revoke then dummy's action is 
not sanctioned and revoke is not established.

-- 
Steve Wright
Leicester, England