Hi, After reading the original problem posted by David and views of many informed folks, we can look at it from 2 angles: a) As per the letter of the law, is there any ambiguity in interpretation of law to handle this scenario? Possibly yes as folks on both sides seem to have strong views. In interpretation, we need to consider a key aspect of current bridge laws clearly don't refer to a scenario of played card becoming unplayed anywhere in its statute, hence in all likelihood this case has to treated as no offense committed (just over-sight and no penalties). Also from a more generic stand-point, we should not read each law in isolation and look for continuity (read between the lines) especially when there is interpretation problem. Of course, we also need to simplify and make laws less unambiguous so that different interpretations are not possible especially for poor local-club directors. b) As per the letter of the law where primarily non-offending side should not be damaged, in my view it is clear case of no defective card since it was played to earlier trick. Just put the played card in original quited trick and move on with no revoke or any penalties to offending side. Rgds, RV
