Defective trick?

[pran]

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

If you read and understand the laws you will know that this is a Law 14B and not a Law 67B situation.

[blackshoe]

Don't dodge the question, Sven.

[pran]

Don't dodge the question, Sven.

I mean it: His example is clearly a case for Law 14B; I see no reason for confusing this thread with it.

[blackshoe]

Declarer calls for the ♠3 from dummy. The ♠3 ends up, not amongst dummy's quitted tricks, but on the floor. Is there a defective trick?

 

Put it another way: once a card has been played, is it always a part of the trick, still in play or quitted, regardless where it (the card) is? Or if it is somewhere else (i.e., not in front of the player in the played position, in the case of a trick still in progress, or amongst the player's quitted tricks, for tricks no longer in progress) is the trick to which that card "belongs" defective?

 

As far as I'm concerned, 14B is a red herring here. There are three questions; please provide an answer to each one.

[barmar]

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.

The use of "correspndingly" implies that a card can either be in your hand or has been played. Except for cards being played to the current trick, all played cards are quitted.

[pran]

Declarer calls for the ♠3 from dummy. The ♠3 ends up, not amongst dummy's quitted tricks, but on the floor. Is there a defective trick?

 

Put it another way: once a card has been played, is it always a part of the trick, still in play or quitted, regardless where it (the card) is? Or if it is somewhere else (i.e., not in front of the player in the played position, in the case of a trick still in progress, or amongst the player's quitted tricks, for tricks no longer in progress) is the trick to which that card "belongs" defective?

 

As far as I'm concerned, 14B is a red herring here. There are three questions; please provide an answer to each one.

A deck of cards that contains less than 52 cards is defective, the handling of this deck is completely (and uniquely) specified in Law 14. No other law applies to this deck of cards whether the error is discovered before the auction, during the auction or during the play. Where the missing card is placed is irrelevant, it may be found on the floor, within another board which in case contains more than 52 cards or it may not be found at all.

 

A defective trick is most often discovered by a player noticing that he holds an incorrect number of cards in his hand, early during the play also often by anybody noticing that one of the players has an incorrect number of cards positioned as played in front of him. Whenever that happens the Director should be called and he shall right away proceed as specified in Law 67 (after verifying that the deck of cards itself is not defective). If the Director finds that a player has a total of thirteen cards at his disposal, but that the number of cards found among his played cards and in his hand respectively is inconsistent with the number of tricks played then Law 67 instructs the Director to proceed as if the player has failed to play to a trick or has played more than one card to a trick as the case may be.

 

If the player has too many cards in his hand (and correspondingly too few cards among his played cards) possibly as the result of incorrectly picking up a played card and restoring it to his hand then that card is no longer considered played to the trick in which it was originally played. Just imagine the consequences if that player subsequently plays the same card to another trick.

 

So the trick to which the ♠3 belongs is not defective while the ♠3 remains missing (Law 14 applies), but it becomes defective if the player restores the ♠3 to his hand instead of placing it among his played cards (Law 67 applies).

 

Although this appears to be only two answers I believe I have answered all your questions? (And Law 14 is certainly no red herring here.)

[bluejak]

Declarer calls for the ♠3 from dummy. The ♠3 ends up, not amongst dummy's quitted tricks, but on the floor. Is there a defective trick?

 

Put it another way: once a card has been played, is it always a part of the trick, still in play or quitted, regardless where it (the card) is? Or if it is somewhere else (i.e., not in front of the player in the played position, in the case of a trick still in progress, or amongst the player's quitted tricks, for tricks no longer in progress) is the trick to which that card "belongs" defective?

 

As far as I'm concerned, 14B is a red herring here. There are three questions; please provide an answer to each one.

Yes, there is a defective trick.

 

Sorry, I am unconvinced that it is always part of the trick. Law 67 has been used in the obvious way over the years and this novel idea of not using Law 67 for a defective trick by saying it was not originally defective does not seem based in Law.

 

When a trick has any number of cards other than four I believe it to be defective. If the card is found on the floor, Law 14 applies.

[blackshoe]

A deck of cards that contains less than 52 cards is defective, the handling of this deck is completely (and uniquely) specified in Law 14. No other law applies to this deck of cards whether the error is discovered before the auction, during the auction or during the play. Where the missing card is placed is irrelevant, it may be found on the floor, within another board which in case contains more than 52 cards or it may not be found at all.

 

A defective trick is most often discovered by a player noticing that he holds an incorrect number of cards in his hand, early during the play also often by anybody noticing that one of the players has an incorrect number of cards positioned as played in front of him. Whenever that happens the Director should be called and he shall right away proceed as specified in Law 67 (after verifying that the deck of cards itself is not defective). If the Director finds that a player has a total of thirteen cards at his disposal, but that the number of cards found among his played cards and in his hand respectively is inconsistent with the number of tricks played then Law 67 instructs the Director to proceed as if the player has failed to play to a trick or has played more than one card to a trick as the case may be.

 

If the player has too many cards in his hand (and correspondingly too few cards among his played cards) possibly as the result of incorrectly picking up a played card and restoring it to his hand then that card is no longer considered played to the trick in which it was originally played. Just imagine the consequences if that player subsequently plays the same card to another trick.

 

So the trick to which the ♠3 belongs is not defective while the ♠3 remains missing (Law 14 applies), but it becomes defective if the player restores the ♠3 to his hand instead of placing it among his played cards (Law 67 applies).

 

Although this appears to be only two answers I believe I have answered all your questions? (And Law 14 is certainly no red herring here.)

 

I don't know, Sven. Are you familiar with the Internet abbreviation tl;dr? It means "too long; didn't read". I will read it later, but not right now.

 

FWIW, my answers to my three questions are "yes", "no", and "yes". But why use one word when we can use one hundred? :blink:

 

Edit: Okay, I'm reading this now.

 

"No other law applies to this deck". Not even Law 1?

 

I don't need lessons in how things should go, thank you.

 

I'm afraid I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall, and I have enough headaches already. I won't say you're wrong. I won't say you're right. I will say I can't make sense of this post, in the context of the problem which started this thread.

[Cascade]

Yes, there is a defective trick.

 

Sorry, I am unconvinced that it is always part of the trick. Law 67 has been used in the obvious way over the years and this novel idea of not using Law 67 for a defective trick by saying it was not originally defective does not seem based in Law.

 

When a trick has any number of cards other than four I believe it to be defective. If the card is found on the floor, Law 14 applies.

 

What made the card unplayed after it had been played?

 

Does not quitting a trick make the card unplayed?

[Cascade]

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.)

 

The rectification in Law 67 assumes that a card has not been played

 

Law 67B1 for example "When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick..."

 

It is hard to apply this law when a card was in fact played to the trick.

 

It does matter that the card has been played.

 

It wouldnt occur to me to apply Law 67 when a card had in fact been played.

[nige1]

Yet another law that needs clarification and simplification. As a mere player, however, who doesn't understand current laws, I prefer Bluejak's and pran's interpretation -- penalising the side that has the hand with the wrong number of cards. The practical argument for this is that, yet again, deterrence is more appropriate than so-called "Equity": Retaining played winners or "mislaying" unwanted losers, carelessly or otherwise, may well work in your favour, if opponents don't notice. The law should discourage such habits. Revoking is another candidate for a more deterrent approach.

[Cascade]

Yet another law that needs clarification and simplification. As a mere player, however, who doesn't understand current laws, I prefer Bluejak's and pran's interpretation -- penalising the side that has the hand with the wrong number of cards. The practical argument for this is that, yet again, deterrence is more appropriate than so-called "Equity": Retaining played winners or "mislaying" unwanted losers, carelessly or otherwise, may well work in your favour, if opponents don't notice. The law should discourage such habits. Revoking is another candidate for a more deterrent approach.

 

There is nothing in the OP that suggests the ♥3 would later be a winner. Sure it could happen especially if trumps.

[dburn]

Yes, there is a defective trick.

 

Sorry, I am unconvinced that it is always part of the trick. Law 67 has been used in the obvious way over the years and this novel idea of not using Law 67 for a defective trick by saying it was not originally defective does not seem based in Law.

 

When a trick has any number of cards other than four I believe it to be defective. If the card is found on the floor, Law 14 applies.

The novel idea of using Law 67B to say that there has been a defective trick when there has not been a defective trick does not seem to be based in rationality. Indeed, it is one of the most absurd pieces of thinking I have ever encountered. A player who plays a card to a trick, and later picks that card up again by mistake and puts it back in his hand, has not thereby unplayed the card to the trick so that the trick becomes defective in retrospect. Four cards, no more and no fewer, were played to the trick, which was not defective then and is not defective now.

 

The Director may use Law 67B to determine that there has been a defective trick if there is no other explanation for the fact that a player has too few or too many cards in his hand. But when there is another explanation, and it is an explanation consistent with reality on which all the players at the table are agreed, then the Director may not determine that there has been a defective trick when this is plainly not the case.

[pran]

I don't know, Sven. Are you familiar with the Internet abbreviation tl;dr? It means "too long; didn't read".

...........

I don't need lessons in how things should go, thank you

............

I used fairly brief statements in my early comments.

With your post I understood that a more comprehensive explanation was neccessary and tried to give a lesson like we do when explaining the laws to candidates.

In the meantime Bluejak has given a concentrated comment on the question with little or no "extraneous" explanation, and I feel happy noticing that his response is very much the same as my own early comments.

[pran]

Deleted, duplicate.

For some strange reason my first attempt to "Add reply" seemed to fail?

[campboy]

Let's consider for a moment how this interpretation might work in practice. Suppose declarer leads up to Kx of a suit in dummy and plays the king, covered by the ace. Three players turn the trick, but dummy does not; declarer's RHO leads to the next trick. Declarer quickly plays a card, then says "Oh dear, the previous trick was defective. I'd better play a card to it from dummy. Small, please."

 

Is this right? If not, why is it different from the other cases?

[pran]

The novel idea of using Law 67B to say that there has been a defective trick when there has not been a defective trick does not seem to be based in rationality. Indeed, it is one of the most absurd pieces of thinking I have ever encountered. A player who plays a card to a trick, and later picks that card up again by mistake and puts it back in his hand, has not thereby unplayed the card to the trick so that the trick becomes defective in retrospect. Four cards, no more and no fewer, were played to the trick, which was not defective then and is not defective now.

 

The Director may use Law 67B to determine that there has been a defective trick if there is no other explanation for the fact that a player has too few or too many cards in his hand. But when there is another explanation, and it is an explanation consistent with reality on which all the players at the table are agreed, then the Director may not determine that there has been a defective trick when this is plainly not the case.

This comment appears to deny the principles behind and use of Law 67 (and its predecessors) since the beginning of Bridge. It is understandable that someone not experienced with Law 67 can make such "mistake" from just reading the actual words in that law rather than understanding the reality of the law, but I believe this calls for moving the thread to "Changing Laws & Regulations" (or starting a new thread there).

[Cascade]

This comment appears to deny the principles behind and use of Law 67 (and its predecessors) since the beginning of Bridge. It is understandable that someone not experienced with Law 67 can make such "mistake" from just reading the actual words in that law rather than understanding the reality of the law, but I believe this calls for moving the thread to "Changing Laws & Regulations" (or starting a new thread there).

 

Is that use or misuse?

[pran]

This comment appears to deny the principles behind and use of Law 67 (and its predecessors) since the beginning of Bridge. It is understandable that someone not experienced with Law 67 can make such "mistake" from just reading the actual words in that law rather than understanding the reality of the law, but I believe this calls for moving the thread to "Changing Laws & Regulations" (or starting a new thread there).

Is that use or misuse?

I cannot see how an entry in "Changing Laws & Regulations" raising the question of a change in the wording in Law 67 to make it better complying (literally) with the existing principles and use of that law can be misuse of anything?

 

For my own part I feel comfortable with Law 67 as it is and have no desire for any change.

[nige1]

This one will run and run. To a layman, a defective trick is simply a trick containing the wrong cards or the wrong number of cards, so law 67 or whatever seems appropriate. The alternate "Bridge-logic" argument also has merit : at the time the trick was played, it was not defective. You pays your money and you takes your choice. As usual, the director must rule on a whim and a prayer. Alternatively, we can just keep arguing until 2018 or 2028 or whenever the WBFLC finally decide to bite the bullet and make the hard decision to write a simpler, clearer, less subjective, more deterrent, and more complete law-book..

[Cascade]

I cannot see how an entry in "Changing Laws & Regulations" raising the question of a change in the wording in Law 67 to make it better complying (literally) with the existing principles and use of that law can be misuse of anything?

 

For my own part I feel comfortable with Law 67 as it is and have no desire for any change.

 

I was referring to the misuse of Law 67.

 

The penalties prescribed therein that relate to a situation when a player has one (or more) too few cards among his quitted tricks only applies "When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick...". It is impossible to properly apply this provision of the law when in fact a card from the hand in question was played to the trick in question. This fact is plain. Doing so contrary to the written law is therefore a misuse of that law.

[pran]

I was referring to the misuse of Law 67.

 

The penalties prescribed therein that relate to a situation when a player has one (or more) too few cards among his quitted tricks only applies "When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick...". It is impossible to properly apply this provision of the law when in fact a card from the hand in question was played to the trick in question. This fact is plain. Doing so contrary to the written law is therefore a misuse of that law.

I believe you are not appreciating the significance of the following clause in Law 67B:

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)

 

We have always (to my knowledge) used the condition specified between brackets in this clause as the main criterion for a trick to be deemed defective and Law 67 to apply.

 

Even evidence to the effect that a card thus found in a player's hand instead of among his played cards had indeed been played to a trick and afterwards somehow must have found its way back into the hand in question has always been considered irrelevant in this context.

[Cascade]

I believe you are not appreciating the significance of the following clause in Law 67B:

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)

 

We have always (to my knowledge) used the condition specified between brackets in this clause as the main criterion for a trick to be deemed defective and Law 67 to apply.

 

Even evidence to the effect that a card thus found in a player's hand instead of among his played cards had indeed been played to a trick and afterwards somehow must have found its way back into the hand in question has always been considered irrelevant in this context.

 

I understand that clause. And the director finding that one hand contains too many cards is evidence suggesting a card was not played. However you can not simply ignore that the card was played.

 

Furthermore it is impossible to apply Law 67B1 when the card has in fact been played.

 

Also there is a completely separate law that deals with the issue of quitting a trick. I can think of no reason to not rule under that law when that is in fact the infraction. Sure that law does not provide a specific penalty. Nevertheless there are ways of rectifying any damage that has been done to the non-offending side when the laws do not prescribe a specific penalty.

 

It seems a complete distortion to rule that a played card has somehow become unplayed in order to apply Law 67B1.

[dburn]

This comment appears to deny the principles behind and use of Law 67 (and its predecessors) since the beginning of Bridge. It is understandable that someone not experienced with Law 67 can make such "mistake" from just reading the actual words in that law rather than understanding the reality of the law, but I believe this calls for moving the thread to "Changing Laws & Regulations" (or starting a new thread there).

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.

[Trinidad]

Technically, I don't see any definition of "defective trick" in the Laws. The term defective trick appears in the heading of Law 67 and in the body of Law 67B, but is not defined.

 

However, it isn't too hard to imagine that Law 67A was actually meant to contain a definition for "defective trick":

 

"When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick..."

 

Yes, technically it would have been better if Law 67 actually started with: "A defective trick is a trick to which a player has omitted to play to, or has played too many cards to." (Maybe good for the next edition of the Laws?) But you need to be pretty far off to think that a trick to which each player has played exactly one card (as was the case here) can be covered by Law 67 as "defective". In other words: I am with Burn. The trick was never defective.

 

The question remains: What to do then in a case where a trick is not quitted or someone adds a quitted card back to his hand?

 

There are two cases:

1) The card is still in the hand.

The card will be removed from the hand and put back where it belongs.

 

2) The card has been played to a subsequent trick and this trick has been quitted.

I think that you can make a much stronger case to treat this subsequent trick as defective (since the card contributed wasn't a legal play) than the first one where everyone legally played one card. Odds are that it is a lot easier to restore too, since it is later in the play.

 

Rik