Defective trick?

[bluejak]

Trick nine. Declarer leads the ♥A and calls for the ♥3 from dummy. When the trick is turned down, dummy fails to turn his card down - no-one notices.

 

Trick ten. Declarer leads the ♠K, LHO follows, and when declarer looks at dummy he sees the ♥3 which he had played to the previous trick! He counts dummy's cards and finds there is one too many!

 

Director!

[alphatango]

Doesn't look very defective. After all, (L45B) declarer "play[ed] a card from dummy by naming [the] card, after which" some administrative stuff that was supposed to happen didn't. So, bad dummy for infracting 45B and 65A (turning the trick), but the card was nevertheless played. *attempts to look confident*

 

(In this case, even if one were to successfully argue that the ♥3 wasn't played, 67B1 would just restore the card to its proper position; I think "in accordance with Law 64A2" also leaves it subject to L64B, (no rectification for L64A when the revoke was a failure to play a card from dummy's hand). Might be more interesting if declarer led the ♥3 and won the ♥A in dummy, of course....)

[barmar]

Yeah, is this a "trick" question? It seems obvious that you simply tell dummy to turn the ♥3 and play proceeds normally.

 

But since this is from David, and isn't posted in the Simple Rulings forum, we must be missing something.

[blackshoe]

This was posted earlier on another site, where I said that my understanding is that because this is not actually a revoke, we apply 64A2 because 67B1{b} tells us to do so, but that 64B3 does not apply. Still my understanding, but I could be wrong. B-)

[barmar]

How does 67B apply? Dummy played to the previous trick, he just forgot to turn over the quitted trick.

 

And if you think this constitutes failing to play to the previous trick, shouldn't it be 67A we're reading, since only one opponent has played to the subsequent trick?

[blackshoe]

"both sides" ≠ "both opponents". :P

 

Law 67B, in part: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the director should proceed as follows.

1. When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if

{a} the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2.

{b} the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2.

 

In the scenario David posted, both sides have played to trick 10. Now if we read 67B1 literally, we stumble over "When the offender [dummy] has failed to play a card..." because technically, that didn't happen, since technically dummy's card was played when declarer named it. Now there is no law that specifically addresses the case where a card was technically played from dummy (the hand), but then dummy (the player) failed to place that card among his quitted tricks. It seems to me this law comes closest though, and that we should read the first sentence of 67B1 to cover the case where the card was technically played. That's one interpretation. The other is that the card was played and so "belongs" among the quitted tricks, and since dummy's hand is exposed, and we haven't gotten beyond the point where dummy is to play to the next trick, we should just put the ♥3 where it belongs and move on. This is probably a better solution from the players' viewpoint (certainly that of the OS) but I'm not sure the TD has the power to read the law in this way. I'm open to arguments that he is, of course. It does beg the question of what we do if one or more full tricks have passed. I suppose we may then be in 12A1 territory.

[bluejak]

Since some people think it absurdly simple, let me cite a very very similar case, with one slight change:

 

:ph34r:

 

Trick two. Declarer leads the ♥A and calls for the ♥3 from dummy. When the trick is turned down, dummy fails to turn his card down - no-one notices.

 

Trick ten. Declarer leads the ♥K, LHO follows, and when declarer looks at dummy he sees the ♥3 which he had played to an earlier trick! He counts dummy's cards and finds there is one too many!

 

Director!

 

:ph34r:

 

Same ruling, I presume?

[axman]

"both sides" ≠ "both opponents". :P

 

 

 

In the scenario David posted, both sides have played to trick 10. Now if we read 67B1 literally, we stumble over "When the offender [dummy] has failed to play a card..." because technically, that didn't happen, since technically dummy's card was played when declarer named it. Now there is no law that specifically addresses the case where a card was technically played from dummy (the hand), but then dummy (the player) failed to place that card among his quitted tricks. It seems to me this law comes closest though, and that we should read the first sentence of 67B1 to cover the case where the card was technically played. That's one interpretation. The other is that the card was played and so "belongs" among the quitted tricks, and since dummy's hand is exposed, and we haven't gotten beyond the point where dummy is to play to the next trick, we should just put the ♥3 where it belongs and move on. This is probably a better solution from the players' viewpoint (certainly that of the OS) but I'm not sure the TD has the power to read the law in this way. I'm open to arguments that he is, of course. It does beg the question of what we do if one or more full tricks have passed. I suppose we may then be in 12A1 territory.

 

The phrase ‘technically……. played’ is not an appropriate characterization [suggesting that the the H3 had in fact not been played, yet because of technicalities….] as used here. By law, the H3 was played to T9.

 

L44B provides that T9 is a complete trick. This would appear to be at odds with the concept that T9 is a defective trick. While L67B implies that a defective trick exists “when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards)” the law in and of itself does not specify just what a defective trick is- it merely gives an instance for recognizing that one exists somewhere.

 

That notwithstanding, the only provision of law I am aware of that provides for action here is L65A When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

It being relevant that quitting the H3 after T13 satisfies the law just as quitting it after T9 satisfies the law.

[blackshoe]

According to my dictionary, "technically" does not carry the suggestion you impute to it. And if I thought it did, I would have used different wording.

 

A defective trick is one which contains more or fewer than four cards. See the definition of "trick" in chapter one. That definition uses "flawed", but they mean essentially the same thing.

 

Okay, TD, you have determined that there are too many cards in dummy, and not enough cards amongst dummy's quitted tricks. Are you now going to say there is no defective trick?

 

quitting the H3 after T13 satisfies the law just as quitting it after T9 satisfies the law.

 

Is it legal to leave all one's played cards face up on the table until after trick 13? If so, why? If not, why not?

[axman]

According to my dictionary, "technically" does not carry the suggestion you impute to it. And if I thought it did, I would have used different wording.

 

A defective trick is one which contains more or fewer than four cards. See the definition of "trick" in chapter one. That definition uses "flawed", but they mean essentially the same thing.

 

Okay, TD, you have determined that there are too many cards in dummy, and not enough cards amongst dummy's quitted tricks. Are you now going to say there is no defective trick?

 

 

 

Is it legal to leave all one's played cards face up on the table until after trick 13? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

I don't know why. I don't know why not.

 

I did inform Kojak of it some 6-8 years ago.

[LH2650]

It appears that the WBF website is broken in the area of WBFLC minutes. However, the Philadelphia minutes can be obtained from the ACBL.

This came up:

 

9. The committee considered the situation of a claim by declarer whereupon it is noticed that dummy at an earlier stage has failed to contribute a card to a trick and consequently has a card too many. It was agreed that no penalty is applied (Law 64B3). The Director determines which card to remove from dummy and then resolves the claim by deciding any doubtful point against the claimer. If the claim statement has been rendered invalid the Director should determine what would have happened if the board had been played out.

 

This seems to be a more general case than that of the OP (or followup), one that could be applied whenever dummy has failed to play a card.

[blackshoe]

There are a couple of different ways to get at the minutes. This one works for me, at least.

 

That case (dummy is discovered to have an extra card after a claim) isn't a more general case, it's a different case. Once there's a claim, play ceases. In our case, there was no claim, so play is still ongoing. Also, there's no indication in the minute that the extra card in dummy had already been played. I don't think the minute is germane.

[Cascade]

That notwithstanding, the only provision of law I am aware of that provides for action here is L65A When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

It being relevant that quitting the H3 after T13 satisfies the law just as quitting it after T9 satisfies the law.

 

That is not my understanding of "When".

[pran]

I have a huge problem seeing that there should be any difficulty here:

 

At the time the Director arrives he will establish the fact that a player (declarer, dummy or either opponent as the case may be) has too many cards in his hand and correspondingly too few cards among his quitted tricks.

 

He will apply Law 67. I cannot see that Law 67B distinguishes between the situation where a player has too many cards in his hand because he has failed to play a card to a previous trick and the situation when he has failed to place his played card among his quitted tricks and instead (somehow) has restored the played card to his hand. In either case the card in question is considered by Law 67 as a card not played to the defective trick.

 

So far I have not bothered about whether the offender is dummy, declarer or any of the defenders, and I do not see why I should need to bother.

 

The main difference is that while Law 67B1(a) applies in either case, Law 64B3 specifically exempts law 64A2 (referred to from Law 67B) when dummy is the offender.

 

So when the error is made in trick 10 and discovered before both sides have played to trick 11 it is rectified as specified in Law 67A1 and play just continues without any further rectification.

 

When the error (by dummy) is made in trick 2 and discovered in (say) trick 10 it is rectified as specified in Law 67B1(a), play continues without any further rectification other than according to Law 64C (if TD finds that defending side has been damaged by the irregularity).

[axman]

That is not my understanding of "When".

 

To be abundantly clear, as used in the relevant context, ‘when’ does in fact mean that upon the play of the putative fourth card to a trick [the trick being complete] at this point the player must quit his card; that is, all four players are to quit their card forthwith.

 

Notably, a player that has not already seen one or more cards [as might be the case for a player with poor eyesight, or a player that has been distracted by a command of the TD], having quitted his card when the trick was completed so as to satisfy L65, must necessarily be prevented from inspecting the cards that have been quitted- as all four players have quitted their cards.

[dburn]

I am not sure I follow this. In both cases, ♥3 has been played to the appropriate trick (the ninth in the first scenario, the second in the second) because declarer called for it from dummy. The effect is the same as if dummy had moved ♥3 among his played cards, but failed to turn it face down. This is a violation of law 65A, but there is no prescribed rectification for such a violation, so there seems to me no reason why ♥3 should not simply be turned over once it is discovered that it hasn't been, and the players should not simply get on with it. Certainly there is no defective trick - four cards have been played to each and every trick.

[pran]

I am not sure I follow this. In both cases, ♥3 has been played to the appropriate trick (the ninth in the first scenario, the second in the second) because declarer called for it from dummy. The effect is the same as if dummy had moved ♥3 among his played cards, but failed to turn it face down. This is a violation of law 65A, but there is no prescribed rectification for such a violation, so there seems to me no reason why ♥3 should not simply be turned over once it is discovered that it hasn't been, and the players should not simply get on with it. Certainly there is no defective trick - four cards have been played to each and every trick.

Sure the card had been played to the trick, but Law 67 (and in particular Law 67B) applies whenever a player has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a corresponding incorrect number of cards among his quitted tricks.

 

It doesn't matter whether the reason is that he never played a card to the deficient trick or if he (for whatever reason) put the played card back to his hand instead of turning it over among his quitted cards. (A common cause for such failures is that a player discovers one of his cards lying on the floor and, not remembering that it had been played, restores that card to his hand.)

[campboy]

Sure the card had been played to the trick, but Law 67 (and in particular Law 67B) applies whenever a player has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a corresponding incorrect number of cards among his quitted tricks.

No, it doesn't. It applies when the director determines there has been a defective trick, such as when "one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards". No mention is made of the number of cards quitted.

 

I agree with dburn.

[pran]

Sure the card had been played to the trick, but Law 67 (and in particular Law 67B) applies whenever a player has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a corresponding incorrect number of cards among his quitted tricks.

No, it doesn't. It applies when the director determines there has been a defective trick, such as when "one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards". No mention is made of the number of cards quitted.

 

I agree with dburn.

So you assert that if in trick twelwe a defender is found to have three cards in his hand and ten cards quitted, then Law 67 does not apply if he states that one of his last three cards was actually played to trick two? Sorry, this is not how Law 67 works, not even if his statement is confirmed by the other players. No card a player holds in his hand (or dummy has faced in front of him) as remaining to be played is considered "played" for the purpose of applying Law 67.

 

(If you want to split hairs: The play of a card is not completed until the card has been positioned as specified in Law 65A so that it can clearly be distinguished from the cards not yet played.)

[campboy]

(If you want to split hairs: The play of a card is not completed until the card has been positioned as specified in Law 65A so that it can clearly be distinguished from the cards not yet played.)

That's nonsense. In fact what law 65A says is that you position the cards as specified "when four cards have been played to a trick" -- past tense -- so the play is already complete before you start turning them.

[dburn]

So you assert that if in trick twelve a defender is found to have three cards in his hand and ten cards quitted, then Law 67 does not apply if he states that one of his last three cards was actually played to trick two?

If he states that he played the card to trick two, that it later fell to the floor, that he picked it up again and mistakenly replaced it in his hand, and that it has remained there ever since - and if the other players at the table corroborate this account - then of course Law 67 does not apply. There was no defective trick, since four cards were played to trick two.

 

Sorry, this is not how Law 67 works, not even if his statement is confirmed by the other players. No card a player holds in his hand (or dummy has faced in front of him) as remaining to be played is considered "played" for the purpose of applying Law 67.

I see no reason that this should be so, nor am I prepared to accept a simple assertion that it is so.

 

(If you want to split hairs: The play of a card is not completed until the card has been positioned as specified in Law 65A so that it can clearly be distinguished from the cards not yet played.)

Suppose a player drops a card on the floor rather than putting it in the position specified by Law 65A. And suppose that had he placed the card in that position it would have constituted a revoke. May the player claim that he did not in fact revoke because he has not in fact played the card?

[pran]

That's nonsense. In fact what law 65A says is that you position the cards as specified "when four cards have been played to a trick" -- past tense -- so the play is already complete before you start turning them.

Was it very welcome or convenient being able to comment on a side note of mine without bothering about the main part of my post?

 

(So you assert that if in trick twelwe a defender is found to have three cards in his hand and ten cards quitted, then Law 67 does not apply if he states that one of his last three cards was actually played to trick two? Sorry, this is not how Law 67 works, not even if his statement is confirmed by the other players. No card a player holds in his hand (or dummy has faced in front of him) as remaining to be played is considered "played" for the purpose of applying Law 67.)

[campboy]

That is not a side issue. Law 67B does not say what you claimed it said; law 65A says the opposite of what you suggested; you have no legal justification for your position whatsoever.

[pran]

If he states that he played the card to trick two, that it later fell to the floor, that he picked it up again and mistakenly replaced it in his hand, and that it has remained there ever since - and if the other players at the table corroborate this account - then of course Law 67 does not apply. There was no defective trick, since four cards were played to trick two.

Law 67B:

After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. . . . .

 

Law 67 applies whenever a player holds an apparently incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of cards are found among his played cards. That the player can assert that he had indeed played (to an earlier trick) the surplus card he now held in his hand does not help him, nor does the alleged reason why the situation has occurred. The simple fact is that he has a certain number of cards "marked as played" and the corresponding number of remaining cards yet to play, and that these numbers are inconsistent with the progress of the play so far.

[dburn]

Law 67B:

After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. . . . .

 

Law 67 applies whenever a player holds an apparently incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of cards are found among his played cards. That the player can assert that he had indeed played (to an earlier trick) the surplus card he now held in his hand does not help him, nor does the alleged reason why the situation has occurred. The simple fact is that he has a certain number of cards "marked as played" and the corresponding number of remaining cards yet to play, and that these numbers are inconsistent with the progress of the play so far.

Suppose that the card is still on the floor. Is there now a defective trick?