[Vampyr]

There is discussion on BLML on this topic, and I am not going to mention names because I have not read the discussion, but certain people, some of whom may be on the WBFLC, believe in this interpretation of Law 23:

It does not apply in this case because the player had already decided what she was going to discard on the third club. Therefore she "could not have known" that the second revoke would help her side.

Well. This is what a believer in the interpretation told me here in Posnan, and I must admit that I have no idea what it means, even though I asked him to explain it and he tried at length. But apparently in the general case it means that to make a Law 23 ruling you have to decide whether the player actually knew or didn't know. Which is exactly what L23 is designed to avoid.

[iviehoff]

Such people don't seem to understand what "could have known" means, then.

[campboy]

As is normally the case with law 23, since declarer wasn't aware that he was committing an infraction he obviously didn't know that it could help his side; but he could have known had he been aware of the infraction, and that is what counts.

[Vampyr]

Yes. This should be obvious, but apparently there is a way to twist the text of the law.