[blml] Revoke established?

[Manuela Mandache]

Selon John Probst <john at asimere.com>:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Manuela Mandache" <mandache at free.fr>
> To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established?
>
>
> Selon Steve Wright <blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk>:
>
> >
> > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank
> > to be played automatically by dummy in tempo.
> >
>
> >That means that, automatically, declarer implicitly accepts the play, so I
> >would
> >rule 'revoke established' whenever declarer doesn't prevent dummy from
> >playi...
> >er... placing the card in a played position.
>
> I don't have a problem with an illegal custom. the card is still "not
> played".

I've already been told I'm stubborn, so none of your reactions will surprise me
:o) I just want to understand the mechanisms of enlarging my philosophy...

My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be allowed to
pretend they were obeying it the very single time this really matters, and take
advantage of it.

Is this just an irrelevant (or wrong?!?) moral jugdement? Should I keep to the
literal application of the law?

Thank you,

Manuela