[blml] Revoke established?

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Steve Wright
> >> > 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 
> rankto 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".

Now, do we have some revelation here!

First of all (as also others have pointed out) Dummy can never "play" a
card, any action he takes to that (or a similar) effect is a "suggestion"
and indeed a violation of Law 45F.

If Dummy's play is forced (like with a singleton) or obvious (like "playing"
one among adjacent cards) Dummy's action is still only a suggestion.

Now, if Declarer in any way indicates an acceptance of that suggestion, like
by nodding, saying "yes" or in any other way then the suggested card becomes
played, however Law 45F still applies and defenders are within their rights
if they call the Director for this reason.

And it does not matter at all if Declarer made his gesture, remark or
whatever rather absent-minded, for instance while studying his hand, the
suggestion has still been accepted and the card shall be deemed played.

However, if Declarer apparently has not noticed the "suggestion" by Dummy,
for instance because he (Declarer) was occupied figuring out some problem
with his own hand, nor has given any indication of acceptance to this
suggestion then I shall maintain my opinion that the revoke by him in the
immediately preceding trick has not yet been established even when his RHO
has played a card subsequent to Dummy's "suggestion".

Technically the play by RHO in this case is premature, but I shall probably
not hold that against him in a case like the described. 

 
> 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.

Hardly relevant or comparable to the question of when a revoke becomes
established.

An inadvertent call can be replaced without any penalty as long as partner
(!) has not made a subsequent call. The important fact for the Director to
establish is if the player had any pause for thought from the moment he
discovered his allegedly inadvertent call until he indicates that that call
was not his intended call. How much time passes after he made his call until
he discovered his error is irrelevant! 

So it is quite possible that an insufficient bid shall be ruled inadvertent
even when some significant time has passed following the 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.

No, I don't think this logic is applicable.

Regards Sven