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

[Tim West-Meads]

Ed wrote:
> 
> 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.  

I'm lost.  L63a2 says "when the offender or his partner names or 
otherwise designates".  There was no indication in the original post of 
either member of OS naming or designating the C8 as "a card to be played 
to the following trick".  

> 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".

Then why?  The mere act of exposing/naming a card does not meet the 
requirements of 63a2 (for example saying "hang on, I have the S4" would 
be an attempt at correcting the revoke not naming the S4 as a card to be 
played to the next trick).

Tim