[Trinidad]

So, in short, no matter how we interpret the process of playing a card from dummy which would be a revoke, all roads lead to the same conclusion: Dummy does not need to play the revoke card:

If the designation and the play are different actions, then not playing the revoke card is preventing an irregularity, one of dummy's rights.
If the designation and play are the same action, then dummy is allowed to ask declarer whether dummy fails to follow suit. (Mycroft)

So, dummy does not need to sit idle and play the revoke card.

And if these two arguments would not be convincing, we still have the law that following suit is more important than any other law. (Pran)

That is very fortunate, since it fits well with the practice in clubs and tournaments.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-07, 13:12, said:

So, in short, no matter how we interpret the process of playing a card from dummy which would be a revoke, all roads lead to the same conclusion: Dummy does not need to play the revoke card:

Dummy plays nothing, but I am pretty sure that he has to put the revoke card in the played position and unface it when the trick is quitted.

[helene_t]

QLDBridge Congress Director Course said:

Please note that after these answers were written the WBF Laws Commission made a ruling that,
when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer
concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1.
Jan Peach

http://www.qldbridge...congress/5B.pdf

[pran]

sanst, on 2015-May-07, 11:45, said:

[...]
The second sentence of 44C doesn't add anything to the first. You must follow suit if possible. I've no idea where the second sentence comes from, but it looks to me some remnant of a long forgotten past, because there is no reason why this obligation should have precedence over other laws.
[...]

For the record:
I could not find anything like that second sentence in the laws of 1935 (the first internationally agreed upon laws), but it was certainly included in 1949 and has apparently not been changed in any way since then.

That sentence has probably been inserted as a safety catch against any SB who might otherwise come up with some inventive argument about conflicting laws.

[blackshoe]

I think we need an original source for the claim that the WBFLC "ruled" that dummy may ask declarer whether he has any cards of the suit led when playing from dummy. A minute, perhaps? Other official statement or correspondence from the LC?

[sanst]

helene_t, on 2015-May-07, 15:09, said:

http://www.qldbridge...congress/5B.pdf

It's in the WBFLC Minutes of October 28, 2001: "It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1". IMO that settles it. It's also in the EBU White Book 2014.

[helene_t]

Minutes of the Meeting of the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee Paris, 28th October 2001 said:

7. It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1.
[Secretary’s note: the above is amended wording as agreed in the meeting of 30th October; it makes it clear that a dummy who has lost his rights is not barred from making such an enquiry in relation to declarer’s play from dummy.]

http://www.figbemili...ee-Complete.pdf

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

Thanks for the link, Helene. I have all the minutes in separate files, but having them in one makes things a bit easier.