dburn

At duplicate, it is meaningless to say that a trick "contains" any number of cards at all. There is no physical object, or aggregation of objects, that can be called a "container" that holds, or "contains", cards. Instead, a trick is an abstraction that comes into (virtual) existence when four players in rotation play exactly one card. The winner of the trick is determined according to the relevant Laws, and the next trick is instantiated (or play ceases for whatever reason). Provided that a trick is properly initiated and properly completed, what happens later to the physical cards that comprised the trick is utterly irrelevant: the trick was played, it was not defective, and it cannot thereafter be rendered defective by removing some card from or adding some card to a non-existent "container". By contrast, bluejak's trick of denying that he said what he said, because the words he used mean something other than what they mean, is grievously defective.

No, there wouldn't. Saying "I have seven diamonds" is not a communication about the play, any more than saying "I have eight points" is a communication about the play, and I have no idea why some otherwise rational people believe that it is.

Just to be clear about this: is the notion that if dummy had called the Director and said "I have seven diamonds", there would be no UI and no infraction; but if he says "I have seven diamonds" without calling the Director, there is UI and an infraction? Because if that is the way the game is supposed to be played, I can understand why a lot of people don't want to play it.

Not quite. You see, the Laws prevent dummy from giving information as to fact or Law other than in the presence of the Director. But a dummy who says that he has eight diamonds when in fact he has seven has not given any information at all, for what he says is not true. Hence there is no infraction, and the Director cannot base a ruling on what would have happened without an infraction that did not exist.

Suppose that dummy had replied "eight". Declarer would cash the king of diamonds and, when both followed, claim ten tricks. How should the Director rule if the opponents objected to the claim?

What worries me about all this is that in Ton's example, where the auction has been 1♠-2♥-1NT... oops, 2NT, West is apparently allowed to know that his partner has not seen the overcall, rather than that his partner has pulled the 1NT card by mistake when he intended to pull the 2NT card. Under what Law is West entitled to this information? It is not enough to say simply "Law 16D does not apply, so the information that East intended to bid 1NT is authorised to West." This implies that it is legal for East-West to pursue at will either of the following paths: East says "sorry, I didn't notice the overcall". Now West knows that East has a 1NT bid, not a 2NT bid. East says "sorry, I pulled the wrong bidding card". Now West knows that East has a 2NT bid, not a 1NT bid. What Ton may have been saying is that West must ignore any explanation by East as to why he made an insufficient bid in the first place, but if West guesses correctly, he is allowed to keep his result. Whereas I don't like this any more than aguahombre or jillybean do, I can (nay, must) accept it if it is the Law. But if what Ton was actually saying is that West is allowed to know why East made an insufficient bid in the first place, I cannot accept that. Such use of extraneous information is a violation of Law 16B, not Law 16D, and there is no provision in Law 27 to the effect that Law 16B does not apply.

This is not clear. The words of Law 27C are: If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A allows the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution. Now, "the relevant foregoing section" might be held by a reasonable man (such as blackshoe) to apply only to Law 27B, the immediately foregoing section to Law 27C. But it might also be held by a lawyer (who despite popular belief and much evidence to the contrary is not automatically held to be an unreasonable man) to apply to any relevant section of the Laws that "foregoes" Law 27C. Since Law 25B1 foregoes Law 27C, it may be considered that Law 25B1 is potentially applicable. This may mean only that the authors of the Laws should pay more attention to what they write. But I am not so sure... Suppose that West bids 2♥, insufficient, and substitutes 3♥ (sufficient) before the Director is called. And suppose that it would suit North's purposes very well not to have East barred from further activity over 3♥, but North knows that (the conditions of Law 25B1a not being met) the Director will bar East from further activity over 3♥. Why, in equity or Law or anything else, should North not be permitted to allow West to bid 3♥ without imposing any constraint on East?

I don't see that a poll in this case would serve much purpose. The case for polling at all depends on the words of the present Law 16: A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [emphasis mine] One uses a poll not to determine what the methods of a partnership are, but to determine what logical alternatives exist given that the methods of the partnership are what they are. In the actual case, there is compelling evidence that since North had a diamond control himself, he wasn't asking South for one - he was just issuing a quantitative slam try. Since that was what South said North was doing, there has been no infraction of Law, and I would incline to fine East-West enough IMPs to lose the match for wasting police time.

Unclear. When a player opens the bidding despite holding only twelve cards, it would be unwise to impute to that player any particular motivation. I am sure that as a purely practical matter I would be in complete agreement with my learned brother bluejak in concluding that if the players at the table don't see fit to call the Director when they ought to, they deserve each other and whatever results they get. Moreover, as has often been remarked, the Laws are hopeless when it comes to multiple infractions, so anyone who thinks he knows what ought to happen in this case is almost certainly wrong. Here is Phil, who has decided that if he had been summoned when North bid 1♣ followed by 2♣, Phil would have ruled that because an opening 1♣ would have been conventional, South would under Law 27B2 have been compelled to pass 2♣. This seems to me correct in Law, and a possible justification for awarding a result of 2♣ down one. However, West might claim that had the auction gone 1NT-pass-pass-2♣-pass-[forced pass] to him, he might have bid 2♦ or doubled 2♣, either of which could have led to a better result for his side than plus 50. There is no indication from the OP that Phil considered this question; all one can say about this is that he probably should have done, but there is a limit to what is expected of even the most assiduous Directors when confronted with complexities such as this. Here is pran, who has decided that this is a case for Law 11A. As far as I can tell, he bases this on the assumption that if the Director had been summoned at some point or other and explained the legal position to North, he might have bid 2♠. All I can say about this is that he might not, and even if he did, West might have bid 3♦ when the putative 2♠ came round to him (or doubled for takeout, when East would have bid 3♦ - recall now that South is barred and cannot bid 3♠). Again, Directors have a tendency to rule on what one side might have done without considering what the other side might then have done; perhaps that is why they are directing and not playing. You might reply, with some justification, that here is West who didn't bid anything when his opponents were about to settle in 2♠ following sundry illegalities - why should he be assumed to bid anything if his opponents were to settle in 2♣ or 2♠ on some quasi-legal auction? Here again I am inclined to follow my learned brother bluejak - average club players tend to get flustered when the constabulary appears at the table, and tend not to perk up with "hang on a minute - don't I get a bid?" when the focus is entirely on what the opponents are or are not allowed to do. Still, the poor fellow would have been confronted with 1NT-pass-pass-2♣-pass-pass in Phil's scenario - why in the name of mercy shouldn't he be allowed to bid two diamonds? I mean, wouldn't you - especially if you knew that at least one of your opponents was barred from bidding spades, or anything else? And here is mycroft, who tells us that he never passes his opponents out in 1NT. As if that had anything to do with it.

I have cited already the fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", but although pran speaks impeccable English, it is possible that he may not speak impeccable Latin. I fasten therefore on the word "consequence" in the above, and refer here to the fallacy of "affirming the consequent". In simple terms, this takes the form: If p is true, then q is true. q is true. Therefore p is true. To show that p is not necessarily true when q is necessarily true, we replace p by the proposition "dburn is dead" and q by the proposition "dburn will never agree with pran on the application of Law 67 to the question posed in this thread". The argument becomes: If dburn is dead, then dburn will never agree with pran on the application of Law 67 to the question posed in this thread. [This is obviously true.] dburn will never agree with pran on the application of Law 67 to the question posed in this thread. [This, I assure you, is equally obviously true.] Therefore dburn is dead. [This, though a consummation devoutly to be wished by (among others) pran, is for the moment obviously false.] Now, if we replace p by the proposition "there has been a defective trick" and q by the proposition "the cards held by a player added to the quitted cards in front of that player amount to a total inconsistent with the number of tricks played", what pran argues that Law 67 says is this: If there has been a defective trick, then the cards held by a player added to the quitted cards in front of that player will amount to a total inconsistent with the number of tricks played. [This is not completely obviously true, but it is true enough for present purposes.] The cards held by a player added to the quitted cards in front of that player amount to a total inconsistent with the number of tricks played. [We assume this to be empirically true.] Therefore there has been a defective trick. [This, in the case where there is some other empirically true explanation for the discrepancy, is obviously false.] Whereas the most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that there has been a defective trick, other explanations are possible (though less likely). Law 67 does not compel the Director to conclude that the most likely explanation must be the true explanation, although the words of the Law should be revised in order not to lead capable Directors such as pran to affirm the consequent. Law 14, though, is deeply and seriously defective and should be revised as a matter of urgency. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why.

This means that when the ♠3 falls to the floor (which need not be at the completion of the trick - it may happen later), the trick to which it was played becomes defective. For that to happen, it must have in some fashion become "unplayed" to the trick (otherwise four cards would still have been played to the trick).

What are High-Low doubles?

Trick seven is defective, since the card played to trick two remained played to trick two and could not be played again to trick seven. It is true that the Laws do not make this explicit, but it is obvious to everybody except sven and bluejak that it is not actually possible to deem a card "unplayed" when it has been played.

In a match last night, dummy left the table to go to the bathroom. Declarer, being somewhat short in stature and unable to reach very far across the table, asked an opponent if he would kindly turn dummy's cards for her. Imagine for the purposes of the experiment that she had obtained the Director's permission for this procedure, in order not to violate Law 7B. The opponent agreed, and play proceeded. At trick six, East (who was turning North's cards as well as playing his own) inadvertently placed dummy's played card face down among his own quitted cards. At trick nine, the Director was summoned to the table to deal with a lead out of turn. As it happens, it did not occur to him to count anyone's cards, but had he done so, he would have discovered that dummy had four unplayed cards and eight quitted cards while East had four unplayed cards and ten quitted cards. Should the Director thereupon rule that there had been a defective trick?

It would not have to. You see, in Norway as soon as you pick up four of your already-played cards, you have unplayed them to the tricks to which you in fact played them, and are considered to have revoked on each and every one of those tricks.

I am not in the least irritated by your request for a specification of what constitutes a defective trick - I think it an entirely reasonable one. But both gordontd and I have adduced, or perhaps have been induced to say, that a defective trick is one to which at least one player has played a number of cards not equal to one. We base our adduction on our induction, or perhaps deduction, from the opening words of Law 67A. Given those words, neither of us believes that some further definition of "defective trick" is required elsewhere in the Laws. An anecdote: some years ago I played against a man who was suffering an attack of hay fever. On one occasion during the match, he put down his unplayed cards for the purpose of snatching from his pocket his handkerchief, into which he sneezed violently for some minutes before being able to resume play. He picked up all of his played cards and none of his unplayed ones, and battled on for at least a trick and a half before someone said "Hang on a minute - you've already played the jack of spades." We didn't call the Director, for this was a private match and there was no official to hand. We just rewound the play, having for the purpose re-equipped the poor fellow with his actual unplayed cards. As it transpired, this was an error on my side's part - he could (and did) beat the contract with what he had left, but he couldn't beat it with what he had already played. Had we but known, we could have invested in a telephone call to Norway and had the chap found guilty of about four revokes.

Quibbling? Not in the least, for one imagines a Bermuda Bowl final in which: South plays no card to trick three, and two cards to trick seven. The cameras in the vugraph room record beyond doubt what actually happened, but the situation was so tense and the problems in play and defence so complex that the twin infractions passed unremarked at the time they occurred. Pran is summoned to the table after trick nine, when it occurs to someone what has actually happened and that something ought perhaps to be done about it. Pran carefully counts South's played cards (nine) and South's unplayed cards (four). The world of bridge (sorry, Bridge) waits with bated breath for his ruling. "No defective trick can possibly have occurred here, for there is no discrepancy between the number of played cards South presently has and the number of played cards he presently ought to have. I don't care what the video evidence shows, for I have been trained in the reality of Law 67B1, and that supersedes anything that might in reality have happened. Play on, please - there will be no adjustment."

A defective trick is not a trick that currently "has three or five cards in it" (since cards are kept separately in front of players at duplicate bridge, rather than gathered into tricks as at rubber bridge, no trick actually has any cards "in it" at all). A defective trick is a trick to which three or five (or any number other than four) cards were played, either because one or more players failed to contribute a card, or because one or more players each contributed more than one card. In order to establish the existence of a defective trick, it is a necessary condition that at least one player should not have the same number of played cards as at least one other player. But it is not, as pran or his trainers seem to believe, a sufficient condition (and nor do the words of the Law stipulate that it is).

I infer from the opening words of Law 67A that a defective trick occurs "when a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick". I believe this inference to be valid (and obvious), and since everything I have written in this thread has been based on that inference, I believe everything I have written in this thread to be true (and obvious). Pran, on the other hand, believes that a defective trick occurs when despite four cards having been played to that trick, one or more cards subsequently become "unplayed" to the trick. I believe this inference to be invalid (and absurd), and since everything pran has written in this thread has been based on that inference, I believe everything pran has written in this thread to be false (and absurd). However, pran asserts an authority for his belief: his training as a Director and his consequent "familiarity" with the "reality of the law", which he would have us believe is something different from the real meaning of the real words in the law. Pity the poor local Director attempting to resolve questions such as these with nothing but his knowledge of language and his common sense to guide him. Pity also the poor local player who puts his unplayed cards down for a moment to wipe his spectacles, picks them up again but inadvertently includes one of his played cards among their number, and is told by one of pran's disciples that not only has he revoked on a trick on which he has clearly not revoked and must lose a trick thereby, but he may very well have been trying to cheat by playing a card twice and will be penalised therefor. He won't believe it, and I don't believe it either - the difference between us is that I won't actually give up the game in disgust.

I don't know how much more plainly I can put this. Law 67B1 applies "when the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick". But the offender (against Law 65, not Law 44) has not failed to play a card to the defective trick. So, Law 67B1 does not apply.

This is beyond a joke. Instead of making two tricks with his ace of hearts, South is now in effect going to make no tricks with his ace of hearts, because pran is going to award a penalty that he has no right at all to award in law in an attempt to deny South a choice that the Law clearly allows him. If South is going to lose a trick because of the revoke penalty that pran is (illegally and absurdly) going to impose in following a Law that ought not to be followed at all (because there has been no defective trick), then South must in equity be allowed the choice given to him by that Law. But these words: "If it is clear that the heart originally played by South to the (now) defective trick was the Ace" mean: "If it is clear that the card played by South to a trick to which he did not play a card was the Ace" and these words alone are sufficient to convince me that I am dealing here with a truly insane viewpoint. Of course, this does not imply that pran is a lunatic - from what he says, this insane viewpoint has been part of his training as a Director, so is not his doing and not his fault. But even the WBFLC could not be that stupid... although given its insane decision not to let a player look at the IMP scale during play, perhaps it could.

It's worse than that. Consider the position in which South drops not the three of hearts on the floor, but the ace. When he discovers, having retrieved the card from the floor and put it back in his hand, that he has one more card than everyone else, pran is summoned to the table. "The trick to which you allegedly played the ♥A is defective", says our hero. "You must choose one of your hearts to be played to that trick." South places the four of hearts among his played cards, then cashes the ace of hearts again. Since the ownership of the "defective trick" was not changed, South has in effect won two tricks with that ace of hearts. Of course, pran will then use the entrails of a toad, the eye of a newt and Law 12A1 to adjust the score. But this is a complete and utter waste of time; instead, the ace of hearts should just be put back where it belonged, and the players should just get on with the game.

That is not entirely accurate. I have attempted to answer it by saying that nothing can make the ♥3 unplayed. Pran has attempted to answer it by saying that those in charge of training tournament directors have the magical power to convince them that a played card was not played, and impart to them in turn the magical power to convince players at the table that a card they saw played with their own eyes, one of them having played it with and indeed from his own hand, was not played. This would be laughable were it not a rather serious matter. The attitude among certain tournament directors that there exists some "reality of the law" apart from the words in the Laws, that this "reality" can only be perceived by the trained adept, and that the untrained should grovel at the feet of the masters instead of pointing out to them that they are talking abject nonsense, is not good for bridge at all.

There is no "reality of the law" apart from the actual words in the law. If, as pran and bluejak seem to assert, Law 67 has been "used" to say that a card was not played to a trick when that card was played to a trick, then the people who have been "using" the law in that fashion are guilty of dereliction of duty and a complete absence of common sense. To claim that there have been a lot of such people since the beginning of Bridge is to claim only that there have been a lot of people since the beginning of Bridge who do not have any common sense and do not know what they are doing. Whilst this is undoubtedly the case, the situation is to be remedied, not perpetuated. Confronted with a player who has too many cards in his hand and too few played cards in front of him, it is likely that a Director will correctly determine that the player must have failed to play a card to some trick or other, because this will often be the true explanation of the fact. But it will not always be the true explanation of the fact, and the actual words in Law 67B do not compel the Director to decide that it is the true explanation of the fact when there is incontrovertible evidence that it is not. Instead, the actual words in the law compel the Director to follow Law 67 when and only when the discrepancy between the cards remaining in one player's hand and those remaining in the other players' hands can only be explained by the occurrence of a defective trick. It is true that those words could have been more clearly written, in order not to confuse pran and others who are deceived by the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc [after this, therefore because of this], but I cannot help that. Meanwhile, it remains the case that no trick is defective to which exactly four cards were played. In the case of the original post, the card remaining in dummy was played to the trick on which declarer called for the card and was played at the moment declarer called for it. What happened to the card afterwards is neither here nor there: it might have been left face up in dummy; it might have been stolen by a passing beaver to form a sluice gate for a dam; it might have been transformed by a malevolent wizard from the three of hearts to the jack of diamonds in order to confuse everyone. But it was played to a trick, and that trick was not defective then, is not defective now, and will be defective never.

Called him an idiot? Called for a taxi?