[blml] Revoke established?

[Eric Landau]

At 11:56 AM 7/7/06, Roger wrote:

>From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
>
> > 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).
>
>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.

The asserion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given 
that declarer gave no instruction to do so, is has not *yet* been 
played.  It becomes played when declarer acknowledges that it is the 
card he intends to play.  Remember, we're talking about no-choice 
cases, where the dummy has a singleton, or only touching 
cards.  Declarer needn't conform precisely to L46A; since he hasn't, 
L46B applies, but has no effect.

>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.

It is designated per L46B as soon as declarer gives any indication that 
he wishes to play it (i.e. to play a card).  Failing to object to RHO's 
attempt to follow to it is probably sufficient.  Turning the trick is 
certainly sufficient.  What will Roger do when dummy, to his right, 
plays a singleton unasked, and declarer turns to him and says, "Your 
turn"?  Demand that declarer read off the rank and suit of the 
singleton before he will play?  In my club, we would call that a 
potential violation of L74B4 ("prolonging play unnecessarily... for the 
purpose of disconcerting an opponent").

>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.

I assert that when declarer turns the trick, he implicitly acknowledges 
that he has completed the trick.  I do not assume that his intention is 
to quit a defective trick to which he has not yet played from 
dummy.  It is that assumption that I call "nonsense".

>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.

The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's 
indicating in some manner that it is a played card.  When the lead is 
made, dummy has a singleton, and declarer says, "Play it," it is 
played, notwithstanding that its rank and suit have not been named.  I 
argue that he doesn't need to say anything at all; he can nod, he can 
turn expectantly to his RHO, or he can simply let the trick play out 
without objecting.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607