[BLML] Appeal No : 11.041 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Richard HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Thu Feb 14 06:27:36 CET 2013

David Grabiner, on the one hand:

>I would agree that a lead out of turn (or an attempt to lead out of turn
>which follows a lead by the other side) constitutes a play to the next
>trick; the precedent is that a lead out of turn frequently establishes a
>revoke. For example, if dummy plays a high card and declarer trumps
>rather than following suit, declarer's attempt to lead from dummy
>establishes the revoke.

Frances Hinden (casebook panellist), on the other hand:

I don't like this. It is a matter of fact (which the TD has to rule on)
what spade North actually called for at trick two, but let's suppose
that he did ask for a top spade and South mistakenly played a low one.
Now it seems that West can prevent that error being rectified by his
own actions - all he has to do is say he's led to the next trick when
declarer also tries to lead to the next trick, and declarer has no recourse.


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:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20130214/de94d1db/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list