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

[Ed Reppert]

On May 27, 2007, at 11:35 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

> It seems to me that since Law 63A2 uses the future tense "to
> be played" this Law is relevant to Manuela's problem.  That is,
> even though a card may not "yet" (future tense) have been
> played, the naming or designation of that card _to be played_
> establishes a revoke.


Okay, I've thought about it. If 63A2 did not exist, I would stand by  
my previous statement - that because Law 63A1 does not say "is  
played", the card is not played and the revoke is not established.  
But 63A2 does exist, and whatever 63A1 says, 63A2 says the revoke is  
established. But not, as many seem to think, because the card being  
waved around "is played".