Defective trick?

[dburn]

Well, I'm not going to worry about defective tricks or wombats or whatever. If each player places, from amongst the unplayed cards in his hand, a card in the played position when a trick is in progress, then that trick is complete as far as I'm concerned, and if one of the cards is later found on the floor, or in the kitchen, or in somebody's pocket, or in the player's hand, I'm going to tell the players concerned that the card goes amongst the quitted tricks belonging to the player concerned, in the appropriate place. And then I'm going to tell them to get on with the game. Granted, if the card is later found to have been "played" to a different trick, I'll have a bigger problem, but that's a different problem, and I'll deal with it when it happens.

It may or may not console you to know that this, almost word for word, was exactly the reaction of the Chief Tournament Director of the World Bridge Federation when I mentioned the "problem" to him a couple of weeks ago.

 

In fairness, I should say that I did not mention the specifics of the original post, in which a card had not been placed among the played cards yet had been played by being called from dummy by declarer. No doubt bluejak, the original poster, had some idea in mind involving this distinction, and perhaps he will at some point share with us what that idea was despite the "distinction" being of no import whatsoever. After all, it is possible that both the WBF CTD and I may be wrong, though this is not necessarily the way to bet.

 

As to axman's musings: I (and gordontd) know what a defective trick is. It is a trick to which at least one player has failed to contribute exactly one card. We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick. As blackshoe correctly remarks, the logistics of such a ruling may constitute a "bigger problem", but that's why they pay him the big bucks.

 

I presume from an earlier post by gordontd that he does not believe (as I don't believe, but pran does believe) that a player with n played cards in front of him and 13-n unplayed cards in his hand cannot at some point have created a defective trick. Gordontd is by nature a far more polite and restrained person than I, which is the only thing that has so far prevented him from correctly describing this belief as complete and utter codswallop. But the truth is this: any trick properly constituted according to Laws 44 through 48 is not and can never be defective according to Law 67.

[gnasher]

I (and gordontd) know what a defective trick is. It is a trick to which at least one player has failed to contribute exactly one card.

 

Given this definition, can you describe how a defective trick of only three cards might have come into existence?

[gordontd]

Given this definition, can you describe how a defective trick of only three cards might have come into existence?

Two ways spring to mind: three players play to a trick (usually with some variation of tempo between them) and turn over their cards not noticing that the fourth has not played.

 

The other is that at an earlier trick one player put a played card back in his hand. If he now attempts to play such a card again and no-one notices, it creates a defective trick.

[gordontd]

I presume from an earlier post by gordontd that he does not believe (as I don't believe, but pran does believe) that a player with n played cards in front of him and 13-n unplayed cards in his hand cannot at some point have created a defective trick.

I confirm that this is the case.

[gnasher]

Two ways spring to mind: three players play to a trick (usually with some variation of tempo between them) and turn over their cards not noticing that the fourth has not played.

 

In this scenario, the first trick hasn't been completed yet, has it? If someone attempts to lead to the next trick, and the fourth player now plays a card, that card belongs to the original incomplete trick rather than to the new trick.

[Blue Uriah]

So, after 8 pages of this I'm still confused. Is the Myles Coup allowed or not? :P

[pran]

So, after 8 pages of this I'm still confused. Is the Myles Coup allowed or not? :P

For Bluejak (I assume) and me this is no problem, we apply Law 67B in due time.

 

But I do wonder about our "opponents"? :unsure:

 

A significant part of those 8 pages is the result of confusing the situation where a player at any instance is actually missing a card (in which case Law 14 applies) and the situation where a player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards (in which case Law 67 applies). It would help a lot if contributors were kind enough to avoid mixing up these situations.

[gordontd]

In this scenario, the first trick hasn't been completed yet, has it? If someone attempts to lead to the next trick, and the fourth player now plays a card, that card belongs to the original incomplete trick rather than to the new trick.

A read of L44B doesn't lead me to that conclusion.

[blackshoe]

It is unfortunate that the laws do not specify that the lead to a subsequent trick cannot be made until the current trick is quitted. However, Law 65A does say "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table" (The emphasis is mine), so turning one's card before there are four cards played to a trick is an irregularity. So per Law 65A, trick n is still in progress if a player has not played to it, even if some other player has led to trick n+1. I suppose if it becomes a sufficient problem that the TD is called, he's going to have to ask to which trick the "slow" player is playing, but I would probably believe his answer, particularly if he says "trick n".

[axman]

It may or may not console you to know that this, almost word for word, was exactly the reaction of the Chief Tournament Director of the World Bridge Federation when I mentioned the "problem" to him a couple of weeks ago.

 

In fairness, I should say that I did not mention the specifics of the original post, in which a card had not been placed among the played cards yet had been played by being called from dummy by declarer. No doubt bluejak, the original poster, had some idea in mind involving this distinction, and perhaps he will at some point share with us what that idea was despite the "distinction" being of no import whatsoever. After all, it is possible that both the WBF CTD and I may be wrong, though this is not necessarily the way to bet.

 

I presume from an earlier post by gordontd that he does not believe (as I don't believe, but pran does believe) that a player with n played cards in front of him and 13-n unplayed cards in his hand cannot at some point have created a defective trick. Gordontd is by nature a far more polite and restrained person than I, which is the only thing that has so far prevented him from correctly describing this belief as complete and utter codswallop. But the truth is this: any trick properly constituted according to Laws 44 through 48 is not and can never be defective according to Law 67.

 

As to axman's musings: I (and gordontd) know what a defective trick is. It is a trick to which at least one player has failed to contribute exactly one card. We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick. As blackshoe correctly remarks, the logistics of such a ruling may constitute a "bigger problem", but that's why they pay him the big bucks.

 

 

 

 

David, how is it that you fail to quote a passage of law that so demonstrates? Is it because there is no such passage to quote?

 

Am I to therefore believe that if you were to have done anything about it, that you would have card X transported from its place among defective trick ‘T9’ to the place of ‘T4'? And upon what basis?

[bluejak]

It may or may not console you to know that this, almost word for word, was exactly the reaction of the Chief Tournament Director of the World Bridge Federation when I mentioned the "problem" to him a couple of weeks ago.

Unfortunately when I spoke to him and he read the Law book he said something like "Very convincing, David: perhaps what I told Burn was wrong".

[dburn]

David, how is it that you fail to quote a passage of law that so demonstrates? Is it because there is no such passage to quote?

We have both already quoted the opening words of Law 67. These demonstrate to our satisfaction the obvious fact that a defective trick exists "when a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick". If you do not share our opinion, so be it.

 

Moreover, these words do not support the bluejak view that a defective trick is a trick that no longer "contains" four cards. No other words in the Laws support this view either, for the obvious reason that the view is wrong.

 

Am I to therefore believe that if you were to have done anything about it, that you would have card X transported from its place among defective trick ‘T9’ to the place of ‘T4'? And upon what basis?

A card played to trick four should if possible, but purely for the sake of compliance with Law 65C, be placed among the owner's played cards somewhere between the card he played to the third trick and the card he played to the fifth trick. It cannot be played to trick nine because it is not eligible for play to trick nine, having already been played to trick four. The defective trick nine must be dealt with in accordance with Law 67.

 

This, in answer to Blue Uriah above, renders the Myles Coup illegal, and pran is quite correct when he says that the trick on which the coup is attempted should be dealt with under Law 67. If he or bluejak continues to believe, however, that the trick from which the card was withdrawn in order to perform the coup has become defective, then he or bluejak continues to be in error.

[axman]

We have both already quoted the opening words of Law 67. These demonstrate to our satisfaction the obvious fact that a defective trick exists "when a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick". If you do not share our opinion, so be it.

 

Moreover, these words do not support the bluejak view that a defective trick is a trick that no longer "contains" four cards. No other words in the Laws support this view either, for the obvious reason that the view is wrong.

 

 

A card played to trick four should if possible, but purely for the sake of compliance with Law 65C, be placed among the owner's played cards somewhere between the card he played to the third trick and the card he played to the fifth trick. It cannot be played to trick nine because it is not eligible for play to trick nine, having already been played to trick four. The defective trick nine must be dealt with in accordance with Law 67.

 

This, in answer to Blue Uriah above, renders the Myles Coup illegal, and pran is quite correct when he says that the trick on which the coup is attempted should be dealt with under Law 67. If he or bluejak continues to believe, however, that the trick from which the card was withdrawn in order to perform the coup has become defective, then he or bluejak continues to be in error.

 

 

Ok, it has taken a while but burn has produced evidence that neither he nor I know what a defective trick is.

 

To recap

>L67A has been pointed at- yet it speaks of errors but not of defective tricks;

>L67B has been pointed at which has the form, if A or B exists then C exists, however, there is no C=?????

 

And

 

Burn has authored a definition:

 

“As to axman's musings: I (and gordontd) know what a defective trick is. It is a trick to which at least one player has failed to contribute exactly one card. We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick.”

 

Now, as evidence of proof you that you do not know what a defective trick is it is noted that you have stated without reservation in answer to the query of:

 

So, all of you who know what a defective trick is, answer this: contestant B plays card X to T4; then at T9 he plays card X [to which the other three also play exactly one card]. Is T9 defective? And why?

 

quote

“We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick.”

end

 

Now, due to the fact that a player has played such a card, there is the supposition (is there not?): > that the required action is to move card X from T9 to T4 [whether X was eligible or not eligible, it in fact found its way to T9] to T4 and having done so- then what?.

 

And, what if I were to have you know that when playing to T4 player B contributed card X; he then called the TD to inform him that card X was a revoke; the TD then made X a PC and B then played card Y to T4. And since the partner of B won T4 the opponent exercised the PC right to deny the lead of the PC suit whereby the TD required X to go back in the hand- where at T9 it was then played.

 

So the moment of truth has arrived. There are irreconcilable differences between two burnian assertions of fact: [a] that T9 prior to moving X to T4 is defective and T9 can never be defective since X could and was played legally to it [a la L44-8].

 

Burn may well say that I deceived him. Yet, I did no such thing. It was burn that deceived himself into believing that he knew something which I had told him that he could not know from TFLB and would not know even if he authored the definition of defective trick. I knew so because his assertions as to what TFLB says suggested that he also did not understand the subject matter sufficiently. The fact is that he believed that he had sufficient facts to assert his statement was true- even when it may not have been true.

 

I am not trying to be difficult with burn, nor am I trying to be hard on him as much as may seem so. I have previously asserted that burn is the smartest of the lot and the best in the smithing of words. But, how would burn put it- bilge emanates from they who don’t fully grasp the whole. As I told the gentleman in the parallel thread in the other forum- even should he create a perfect L67 we will not be any closer to a better lawbook- because he does not yet understand the whole. My point is that as burn is the best and the brightest, yet as he does not yet understand the whole, so, is it not so difficult to believe that the lawmakers may be of lesser ilk when they wrote TFLB and thus left something out?

[dburn]

So the moment of truth has arrived. There are irreconcilable differences between two burnian assertions of fact: [a] that T9 prior to moving X to T4 is defective and T9 can never be defective since X could and was played legally to it [a la L44-8].

I assert as fact that trick four, to which card X was played, is not (and never will be) defective. I also assert as fact that trick nine, not trick four, is defective. I do not assert, never have asserted, and never will assert, that card X was legally played to trick nine - it cannot have been, because it was legally played to trick four and was therefore ineligible for play to trick nine.

 

I assert also that axman is beginning to remind me of those cranks who have plagued mathematicians over the years by claiming to have proved (inter alia) that pi is rational, or that an angle can be trisected by ruler and compass. I do not mean to discourage his contributions, but I do wish that he would read more carefully the arguments he seeks to gainsay.

[axman]

I assert as fact that trick four, to which card X was played, is not (and never will be) defective. I also assert as fact that trick nine, not trick four, is defective. I do not assert, never have asserted, and never will assert, that card X was legally played to trick nine - it cannot have been, because it was legally played to trick four and was therefore ineligible for play to trick nine.

 

I assert also that axman is beginning to remind me of those cranks who have plagued mathematicians over the years by claiming to have proved (inter alia) that pi is rational, or that an angle can be trisected by ruler and compass. I do not mean to discourage his contributions, but I do wish that he would read more carefully the arguments he seeks to gainsay.

 

I note the considerable effort expended to disprove my statement that burn is the smartest of the lot. It is disproven and withdrawn.

[dburn]

I note the considerable effort expended to disprove my statement that burn is the smartest of the lot. It is disproven and withdrawn.

When on our perilous way

Troubles and dangers accrue

Till there's the devil to pay,

How shall we carry it through?

Shakespeare, that oracle true,

Teacher in doubt or despair,

Told us the best that he knew:

Exit, pursued by a bear.