[blml] Revoke established?

[Ed Reppert]

On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Sinot Martin wrote:

> 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.

Seems to me that our job as directors is to determine the facts, not  
make assumptions. At least, not to make them when the facts *can* be  
determined.

A better ruling, IMO, would be to rule the revoke not established,  
but give the declaring side a PP for dummy's failure to observe laws  
42A3, 43A1(c), and 45B.