[blml] Live exam question

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> While it is legal to ask declarer doing so is not without risk.
> If declarer *has* revoked there's no problem since partner will be able 
> to correct under Law62c1 (declarer having no option but to correct his 
> own revoke#). 

Doesn't this work only if the revoking defender is West (declarer 
South), and it's East who asks?  Otherwise it's East who will have to 
correct his revoke (if any) first.

> If declarer *hasn't* revoked the question will be deemed 
> to be directed at partner.

This is what I'm having trouble with.  If declarer has followed suit, 
I'm with you all the way: the question can be directed only at partner. 
And if partner has followed suit, there's no problem at all.  So the 
problem only exists when both declarer and a defender have failed to 
follow suit.

>  If we permit questions of declarer all the 
> "awake" player need do is leave his own card face up until the others 
> have turned their cards and then ask declarer "Excuse me, but did you 
> just revoke?".

If declarer didn't follow suit, in my view the defender can ask any 
time; he doesn't have to be tricky.  And if declarer did follow suit, we 
agree on what to do.

> #Obviously if partner has revoked *before* declarer it is almost 
> certainly better to try to let both revokes become established rather 
> than say anything.

That isn't at all obvious to me.  But both having revoked is a rare 
case.  It must be far more common that the defender knows at least (or 
only) one of the two has revoked but doesn't know which one.  In that 
case, I'd think the explicit language of the Laws should prevail over a 
mere interpretation, no matter how reasonable that interpretation is in 
other contexts.