[blml] Revoke established?

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established?


> At 07:59 AM 7/6/06, Roger wrote:
>
> >Once again John's keen insight is profound.  I suggest examining the
> >effect:
> >
> >Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a spade
> >is the
> >OL and the SA is singleton in dummy.  Dummy uninstructed plops it in a
> >played position.  At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was
> >+played+ to T1.  Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be returned
to
> >dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of the three
> >cards +played+ to it.  Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of dummy's
> >cards
> >added to T1- ostensibly the ace.  And that correction does not affect
> >ownership of T1.
>
> Nonsense.  We actually have a thread here which seems to be coming to a
> common-sense consensus:  The SA was played *when declarer noticed that
> dummy had placed it as though it had been played and failed to object*
> (this point *must* have been reached when he turned trick one without
> saying anything).  An appropriate legal justification is that failing
> to object to dummy's action, once noticed, constitutes "otherwise
> designat[ing] it as the card he proposed to play" per L45C5(a).
>
>
> Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
> 1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607


The assertion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given
that declarer gave no instruction to do so, it has not been played.  The
assertion was tested for its effect.  Nothing else.

Now. If the card had not been played at the point in time that dummy put it
in a played position, then it remains so until declarer so designates
according to law.  What is nonsense is your asserting that declarer playing
a card and then turning it over fulfills the requirement of law that dummy's
non-played card is now played.

A large number have this belief that because only declarer is legally
allowed to designate a card to be played from dummy that if the designation
by declarer isn't made then the card is not a played card to the trick under
any circumstances.  I have demonstrated a consequence of that belief.  And
Probst asserts that it is something that he can live with.

regards
roger pewick