[blml] Interesting question - HELPed [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Manuela Mandache asked:

>>South is declarer in 4S. At trick 4, he calls Sx from dummy,
>>East follows Sx, he plays SQ, and West discards C4. Declarer
>>plays CA, West pulls C8 from his hand, moves it towards the
>>table (everybody sees it, but it's not actually played),
>>then withdraws it saying, "Sorry, was that Spades the
>>previous trick? I have some Spades..."
>>
>>Is the revoke established?

Sven Pran replied:

>West is just in time to avoid his revoke becoming established.

Richard Hills refutes:

I disagree.  While Sven Pran and Ed Reppert are correct in
asserting that the revoke has not yet been established under
the criterion of Law 63A1 (Offending Side Leads or Plays to
Next Trick), which criterion requires a "played card", not
merely a "_must be_ played card", what about Law 63A2?

Law 63A2 (A Member of Offending Side Indicates a Lead or Play):

"A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner
names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the
following trick."

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, a defender waving a card around so that their
partner can see it would fit the criterion of "otherwise
designates a card to be played to the following trick".


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm