Defective trick?

[pran]

Bridge laws are written by humans to formalize the rules under which bridge is to be played. Associated with the written laws are commentaries issued by the lawmakers and resolutions issued by the lawmakers in response to interpretation problems they have received. Tournament directors have in general been trained through various courses.

 

All this combines to a set of existing rules that sometimes are not readily grasped by people for instance reading just the law text without any of the guidance available to certified directors.

 

Law 67 received its present form in 1987, the revision performed at that time appears to having been made for the purpose of allowing defective tricks to be corrected also after both sides had played to a subsequent trick. This shifted the focus from the tricks as such to the number of cards held by each player at any instance during the play (but the heading to this law was not changed). Notice, however, that the headings in the laws are not, and never have been part of the laws proper.

 

Law 67 now kicks in whenever during the play a hand is discovered to contain a number of cards not consistent with the number of tricks played so far. (The only exception to this is that Law 14 rather than Law 67 applies when one or more cards are missing.)

 

Those who are familiar with the laws will simply recognize this as a fact. Others will have to accept it, but they are of course free to suggest (through the appropriate channels) a change of the law text to correct what they consider erratic.

[axman]

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.

 

Not that it is particularly helpful to point it out, but quite a number have been experiencing the proverbial non sequitur. Figuratively speaking, the law has loaded everybody on a long distance bus and taken them to the middle of a large and impressive apple orchard and declared, ‘there is a fruit called an orange.’

 

For they whom never had known anything about oranges it is quite likely that they now will believe that they are surrounded by a lot of oranges. The field trip may indeed have been interesting, yet not necessarily helpful, at least in the way envisioned.

 

It may be all well [but it probably is not] to tell an instance when a defective trick exists; but for someone to write a law about defective tricks who does not take the pain to describe a defective trick, there is sound basis to believe with a high probability that the writer does not know what a defective trick is, yet.

[blackshoe]

From Chapter One of the Laws:

Trick: The unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation beginning with the lead.

Is not "defective" synonymous with "flawed"? Okay, a player contributed to a trick. If that trick is now amongst the quitted tricks (not being any longer the trick currently in progress), then if the four cards of the trick are not all where they are supposed to be, viz. amongst the quitted tricks, respectively, of the players who played them, is the trick not "flawed"? The alternative, it seems to me, is to consider that once a card is played to a trick, it is always and forever a part of that trick (well, until the final result is agreed, and the hand returned to the board), wherever in the Universe it may be. Is that truly the case?

[Trinidad]

Bridge laws are written by humans to formalize the rules under which bridge is to be played. Associated with the written laws are commentaries issued by the lawmakers and resolutions issued by the lawmakers in response to interpretation problems they have received. Tournament directors have in general been trained through various courses.

All very fine. But the original problem doesn't give any interpretation problem. It was clear to all that the ♥3 was played to trick 9. The OP actually states that the card was called, therefore it has been played. Each player played a card to trick 9, hence the trick wasn't defective. The fact that the ♥3 wasn't quitted properly doesn't in any way make trick 9 defective. There is no room for misinterpretation.

 

The same holds for a card that has been played at trick 2 and is discovered at trick 10. If it is reconstructed that it was played at trick 2 and all players have played one card to that trick, then trick 2 wasn't defective. No interpretation problem, just follow the Law book.

 

If it is reconstructed that the card had not been played to trick 2, then trick 2 was defective. Again, no interpretation problem, just follow the Law book.

 

The interpretation problem only comes if it was impossible to reconstruct whether the card had actually been played. In such a case, by all means use the commentary from the Law makers. But in this thread it was very easy to reconstruct that the cards in question had actually been played, so this was not the case in this thread.

 

Rik

[Cascade]

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!

 

 

From Chapter One of the Laws:

Trick: The unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation beginning with the lead.

Is not "defective" synonymous with "flawed"? Okay, a player contributed to a trick. If that trick is now amongst the quitted tricks (not being any longer the trick currently in progress), then if the four cards of the trick are not all where they are supposed to be, viz. amongst the quitted tricks, respectively, of the players who played them, is the trick not "flawed"? The alternative, it seems to me, is to consider that once a card is played to a trick, it is always and forever a part of that trick (well, until the final result is agreed, and the hand returned to the board), wherever in the Universe it may be. Is that truly the case?

 

So what cards composed trick nine?

 

We are not told what the defenders' cards were but declarer played the ♥K and dummy the ♥3. These were properly contributed by each player in rotation.

 

Noone is attempting to answer the crucial question of what subsequently could make the ♥3 unplayed?

 

All that is happened is that this card has improperly not been quit. This should be dealt with under Law 65 not Law 67.

[blackshoe]

I wished to get more information about peoples' thinking. That's why I was asking questions instead of answering them. However, if you want an answer, I'll say that I have no idea what could make a card "unplayed", save for the provisions of Law 47.

[blackshoe]

There is this:

Law 65A: When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

Introduction: Established usage has been retained in regard to … “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized)…

So if Law 65 is the right approach, the card should be put among the quitted tricks where it belongs, and that's the end of it.

[dburn]

No one is attempting to answer the crucial question of what subsequently could make the ♥3 unplayed?

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.

[dburn]

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?

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.

[pran]

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.

Don't try to tell me what I am going to do in a particular case when you (ought to) know that it is not true.

 

If it is clear that the heart originally played by South to the (now) defective trick was the Ace I shall require South to select this Ace (and not the four) to be placed among his played cards in order to avoid a PP (in addition to the automatic revoke rectification specified in Law 67B1a).

[dburn]

Don't try to tell me what I am going to do in a particular case when you (ought to) know that it is not true.

 

If it is clear that the heart originally played by South to the (now) defective trick was the Ace I shall require South to select this Ace (and not the four) to be placed among his played cards in order to avoid a PP (in addition to the automatic revoke rectification specified in Law 67B1a).

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.

[bluejak]

All very fine. But the original problem doesn't give any interpretation problem. It was clear to all that the ♥3 was played to trick 9. The OP actually states that the card was called, therefore it has been played. Each player played a card to trick 9, hence the trick wasn't defective. The fact that the ♥3 wasn't quitted properly doesn't in any way make trick 9 defective. There is no room for misinterpretation.

No room for misinterpretation? Well, I interpret it differently from you: is that impossible?

 

Despite the scorn being poured, to me, if you go back and look at trick three, and it has three cards [or five] it is now defective. And, to be honest, I do not see how that can be misinterpreted, either.

[dburn]

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.

[pran]

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.

A false statement never becomes true just because it is repeated, however many times.

[campboy]

A false statement never becomes true just because it is repeated, however many times.

Not so. How about "this statement has been made three times before"?

[pran]

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.

If it is clear that a player won a trick with the ♥A and now is in a position trying to win another trick with the same Ace I strongly suspect an attempt to cheat and will treat it correspondingly. The Director's power to apply a PP in such cases is indisputable.

 

Whenever a player is required by Law 67B to submit a card to a previously played trick because he has too many cards in his hand he will always be subject to the standard one-trick revoke rectification provided a trick is available for such rectification.

 

I this doesn't clear up the ignorance of Law 67 I suspect that nothing will.

[axman]

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.

 

I am convinced that burn does not believe all that he writes. I come to the conclusion because of his sentence containing:

 

…..(because there has been no defective trick),…..

 

When inspecting TFLB2008 I find no specification as to what a defective trick is; additionally, I find no specification as to what a defective trick is not. Yet burn claims that there was no defective trick. As he has not quoted a law that would lead to such a conclusion**. That begs the question, ‘how does he know so?’ Certainly, as the law stands, even though one might in fact make a true assertion [as in guessing which square root of 1 someone is imagining since can quite easily tell you it is the other one], it is dubious to assert the trick is not defective; as well as the converse, the trick is defective.

 

** yes, he has quoted law, just not law that leads to that conclusion

 

TFLB is bountiful in instances where a concept is created and then nothing is done with it, or worse, bad things are done with it.

[dburn]

I am convinced that burn does not believe all that he writes. I come to the conclusion because of his sentence containing:

 

…..(because there has been no defective trick),…..

 

When inspecting TFLB2008 I find no specification as to what a defective trick 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.

[bluejak]

I would have thought a "poor local Director" would find the term defective trick clear and helpful if one trick has three or five cards in it. The suggestion that he will logically infer that such a trick is not defective is ludicrous.

[dburn]

I would have thought a "poor local Director" would find the term defective trick clear and helpful if one trick has three or five cards in it. The suggestion that he will logically infer that such a trick is not defective is ludicrous.

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).

[gordontd]

When inspecting TFLB2008 I find no specification as to what a defective trick is;

 

 

I do: when I look at Law 67: DEFECTIVE TRICK, I see:

 

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

to a trick,

 

That looks like a specification to me.

[bluejak]

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).

That may or may not be true, but it certainly is not obvious, and when you are talking about what a "poor local Director" would understand I see no reason why your logic should apply.

 

As someone else pointed out, you will repeat it until everyone gives up, but that does not make it right.

[axman]

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.

 

burn,

 

I placed a nettle beneath the nail of your pinky finger not to cause irritation but to induce you examine your arguments, as well as the arguments, in the minutest detail. You are broaching matters of incalculable importance. But what I wanted from you were sound arguments- all of which are sound. And as I am of the opinion that of all those of high intellect who are on these forums, only you are of superior intellect as well as of superior tongue- and if a suitable argument is to be made the best opportunity is that it comes from you.

 

Well, what have I done? I have irritated. And what haven’t I done? I haven’t induced. For both of which I apologize. Please do me the favor of removing the nettle.

 

regards

[Cascade]

If it is clear that a player won a trick with the ♥A and now is in a position trying to win another trick with the same Ace I strongly suspect an attempt to cheat and will treat it correspondingly. The Director's power to apply a PP in such cases is indisputable.

 

Whenever a player is required by Law 67B to submit a card to a previously played trick because he has too many cards in his hand he will always be subject to the standard one-trick revoke rectification provided a trick is available for such rectification.

 

I this doesn't clear up the ignorance of Law 67 I suspect that nothing will.

 

Perhaps rather than cheat he is trying to expose the absurdity of the ruling.

 

You are trying to apply this provision of Law 67:

 

Law67B1.

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);

 

despite the fact that a card has been played.

 

As far as I can tell there is no requirement in this law to expose the card that had already been played - well there couldn't be because the premise of the law is that "... the offender has failed to play a card ..." - therefore the player who is to expose "... a card ..." ought to be free to expose "... a card ...".

 

Then you are trying to, without reference to law, restrict which card should be exposed so as to maximize the penalty to the offender when the law is clear that it is appropriate and legal to choose a rectification that is the most advantageous to one's side.

 

Law 10C4.

Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is

appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to

their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own

infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50).

[Trinidad]

All very fine. But the original problem doesn't give any interpretation problem. It was clear to all that the ♥3 was played to trick 9. The OP actually states that the card was called, therefore it has been played. Each player played a card to trick 9, hence the trick wasn't defective. The fact that the ♥3 wasn't quitted properly doesn't in any way make trick 9 defective. There is no room for misinterpretation.

No room for misinterpretation? Well, I interpret it differently from you: is that impossible?

 

Despite the scorn being poured, to me, if you go back and look at trick three, and it has three cards [or five] it is now defective. And, to be honest, I do not see how that can be misinterpreted, either.

Law 67A has been quoted a few times in this thread. If you read it, you will see that it doesn't mention how many cards the trick has. It mentions only how many cards have been played -by each player- to the trick. So if the TD establishes that each player played one card to trick three, then trick three was not defective. The mere fact that a trick now contains three cards doesn't necessarily mean that three cards were played to it. There are other possible explanations for a disappearing card. And you have mentioned in your OP that this was actually the case (the card was played, but never turned).

 

Law 67A: "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick, the error must be rectified if attention is drawn to the irregularity before a player on each side has played to the following trick." This clearly doesn't apply when all players have been playing exactly one card to each trick.

 

It doesn't apply when nothing strange happens to the cards played, and it also doesn't apply if played cards later disappear, end up being added to a hand or start singing La Marseillaise for all I care. A card played is a card played. And 4x1 played card equals a "non defective trick".

 

If you want to misinterpret "play" for "have" or "contain", that is entirely up to your misinterpretation. But the Lawbook doesn't leave you room for it.

 

Rik