[blml] What is equity - added substance. [Long]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Herman De Wael a écrit :
> Which is why, if someone rules that a player knew (or could have 
> known) that to revoke again would be to his benefit, that TD also 
> rules that the player has maliciously broken L72B4.
>
>   
AG : or rather, that he could have.

There are still two possibilities :

1) he didn't notice, even now, that he still holds a plum in his hand 
(allowed)
2) he noticed the remaining plum, and didn't give it a damn (severe 
infraction)

As usual, we don't say it's 2), but we might say it could be.  WTP ?  
This is no more, and no less, of an hypocrisy than any other "could 
have" ruling.
This ruling is seldom made, but IMHO it might be made within the actual 
laws and without shouting "cheat".
Perhaps the events at the table could make 2) more plausible (based on 
questions, surprise, ...)

Best regards

   Alain