Law 67 - Defective Trick

[alphatango]

EDIT: A second version has been posted at #48.

 

I have followed, with some difficulty, the "Defective Trick" thread in the "Laws and Rulings" forum. It is now clear that pran's position is that the parenthetical clause of L67B is in fact definitional. blackshoe seems to have joined the "L67 is not applicable" camp. And between bluejak's posts and other people's commentaries on his posts, I now have no idea what bluejak's viewpoint actually is. :lol:

 

What is obvious is that the 201x version of L67 could do with a rewrite. To start with, the term "defective trick" should be defined. The status of the parenthetical clause in 67B (definition or example) should be clarified. Hence this thread: what should the new L67 look like?

 

As a rough starting point, I propose: "When a player fails to contribute exactly one card to a trick, and a member of his side plays (or designates a card to be played) to a subsequent trick, the former trick is defective."

 

Then:

• The "establishment" of the defective trick occurs when the OS plays to the following trick, in line with revokes.
• Defective tricks which are currently dealt with under 67A continue to be subject to the same rectifications (offender supplies a missing card where needed, or is subject to 45E/58B when he has played too many cards). References to 45E and 58B are moved to a footnote, and a reference to 57 is added to cover the case where offender has failed to contribute a card. Need to check the consequences in the latter case.
• Note the current anomaly in 67A1 -- when offender supplies the missing card, it is not clear whether this affects the ownership of the trick, whether NOS's card can be withdrawn (and if so, who leads to the subsequent trick). Will need to add some clarification.
• Current 67B remains mostly the same, except for the first paragraph, which is simplified. Directors now determine whether there is a defective trick in the usual way (L85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts).
• The reference to L64A2 penalties is modified in order to clarify whether 64B and 64C are applicable (I have chosen to invoke the entire L64).

LAW 67 - DEFECTIVE TRICK

 

A. Definition

When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick, and his side has played (or designated a card to be played) to the following trick*, the former trick is defective.

 

* Where a player's side has not yet played to the following trick and: (a) the player has contributed too many cards, see Law 45E (Fifth Card Played to a Trick) or Law 58B (Simultaneous Cards from One Hand); (b) the player has failed to contribute a card, he supplies a legal card; see Law 57 (Premature Lead or Play).

 

B. Rectification Following a Defective Trick

When the Director determines that there has been a defective trick, he determines which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director proceeds 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 this established revoke is subject to rectification in accordance with Law 64.

(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 this established revoke is subject to rectification in accordance with Law 64.

 

2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change.

(b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender's hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

 

* The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender's played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defender's hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50).

[pran]

I have followed, with some difficulty, the "Defective Trick" thread in the "Laws and Rulings" forum. It is now clear that pran's position is that the parenthetical clause of L67B is in fact definitional. blackshoe seems to have joined the "L67 is not applicable" camp. And between bluejak's posts and other people's commentaries on his posts, I now have no idea what bluejak's viewpoint actually is. :lol:

 

What is obvious is that the 201x version of L67 could do with a rewrite. To start with, the term "defective trick" should be defined. The status of the parenthetical clause in 67B (definition or example) should be clarified. Hence this thread: what should the new L67 look like?

 

As a rough starting point, I propose: "When a player fails to contribute exactly one card to a trick, and a member of his side plays (or designates a card to be played) to a subsequent trick, the former trick is defective."

 

Then:

• The "establishment" of the defective trick occurs when the OS plays to the following trick, in line with revokes.
• Defective tricks which are currently dealt with under 67A continue to be subject to the same rectifications (offender supplies a missing card where needed, or is subject to 45E/58B when he has played too many cards). References to 45E and 58B are moved to a footnote, and a reference to 57 is added to cover the case where offender has failed to contribute a card. Need to check the consequences in the latter case.
• Note the current anomaly in 67A1 -- when offender supplies the missing card, it is not clear whether this affects the ownership of the trick, whether NOS's card can be withdrawn (and if so, who leads to the subsequent trick). Will need to add some clarification.
• Current 67B remains mostly the same, except for the first paragraph, which is simplified. Directors now determine whether there is a defective trick in the usual way (L85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts).
• The reference to L64A2 penalties is modified in order to clarify whether 64B and 64C are applicable (I have chosen to invoke the entire L64).

LAW 67 - DEFECTIVE TRICK

 

A. Definition

When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick, and his side has played (or designated a card to be played) to the following trick*, the former trick is defective.

 

* Where a player's side has not yet played to the following trick and: (a) the player has contributed too many cards, see Law 45E (Fifth Card Played to a Trick) or Law 58B (Simultaneous Cards from One Hand); (b) the player has failed to contribute a card, he supplies a legal card; see Law 57 (Premature Lead or Play).

 

B. Rectification Following a Defective Trick

When the Director determines that there has been a defective trick, he determines which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director proceeds 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 this established revoke is subject to rectification in accordance with Law 64.

(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 this established revoke is subject to rectification in accordance with Law 64.

 

2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change.

(b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender's hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

 

* The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender's played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defender's hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50).

Without having scrutinized this suggestion too carefully I have the impression that it essentially expresses the same law that applies today.

 

However, on two major points it leaves an irregularity unresolved:

 

If a player incontrovertibly has played a card and then in whatever way and for whatever reason has this card restored to his own hand so that he from now on has one card too many in his hand and correspondingly one too few among his played cards, what law shall apply?

 

(Side question: If the player then plays the same card to a later trick before the irregularity is discovered then what law shall apply?)

 

Similarly if a player has placed a card from his hand among his played cards without actually playing it (and this is an incontrovertible fact) then what law shall apply?

[alphatango]

Without having scrutinized this suggestion too carefully I have the impression that it essentially expresses the same law that applies today.

 

Yes. But it expresses one (or, I hope, close to only one) interpretation of the current law, with less room for different interpretations. Obviously, we can construct versions which will express different (single) interpretations if those are preferred. My proposal is not in accordance with your (pran's) interpretation of the current law.

 

If a player incontrovertibly has played a card and then in whatever way and for whatever reason has this card restored to his own hand so that he from now on has one card too many in his hand and correspondingly one too few among his played cards, what law shall apply?

 

This is not unresolved in my proposal; the trick stands as played. (If the director gets called at this point, he directs the player to place the card in the appropriate position among his played cards. And removes the offender's alcoholic beverage.) If such a situation happens, there is no defective trick. See the definition I am proposing.

 

(Side question: If the player then plays the same card to a later trick before the irregularity is discovered then what law shall apply?)

 

The later trick is (or, rather, will be) defective, as the player has not legally played a card to that trick. If the opponents are damaged by the apparent play of a card, they obtain redress via other laws (perhaps 12A1?). So the proposed 67B will apply if offender's side has played to a subsequent trick; 57 otherwise.

 

Similarly if a player has placed a card from his hand among his played cards without actually playing it (and this is an incontrovertible fact) then what law shall apply?

 

Well, he hasn't actually played that card yet, so there isn't (yet) a problem in terms of revokes or defective tricks. He may, of course, be infracting L65, etc. When he fails to follow suit with that card when required, then he will have revoked.

 

 

 

(By the way, given that I'm perhaps overly verbose, it might not be strictly necessary to quote my entire post. :lol:)

[pran]

Yes. But it expresses one (or, I hope, close to only one) interpretation of the current law, with less room for different interpretations. Obviously, we can construct versions which will express different (single) interpretations if those are preferred. My proposal is not in accordance with your (pran's) interpretation of the current law.

As far as I can see the only difference is your introduction of making Law 67 dependent upon the subjective judgement whether a card has actually been played when missing (or found when it should not be) among the played cards, instead of the current understanding of Law 67 which solely depends upon the objective fact whether there is an inconsistency in the number of cards (still) held by a player and the number of tricks yet to be played when his total number of cards at this player's disposal is correct. Your proposal unnecessarily opens the door for futile discussions whether or not a card had been played.

 

This is not unresolved in my proposal; the trick stands as played. (If the director gets called at this point, he directs the player to place the card in the appropriate position among his played cards. And removes the offender's alcoholic beverage.) If such a situation happens, there is no defective trick. See the definition I am proposing.

Forget when the director is called at that point, the problem is when the director is called later.

 

The later trick is (or, rather, will be) defective, as the player has not legally played a card to that trick. If the opponents are damaged by the apparent play of a card, they obtain redress via other laws (perhaps 12A1?). So the proposed 67B will apply if offender's side has played to a subsequent trick; 57 otherwise.

You may have the futile discussion on whether the card was played to the first trick or to the second trick. The player can for instance argue that he did not play it to the first trick but just lost it on the table. And please do not depend on Law 12 to solve all problems, it is designed to cater for unforeseen circumstances.

 

Well, he hasn't actually played that card yet, so there isn't (yet) a problem in terms of revokes or defective tricks. He may, of course, be infracting L65, etc. When he fails to follow suit with that card when required, then he will have revoked.

He has an extra card in his hand all the time. Even if it is not played until the play is ended it can still very well have had important effects on the play (for instance in end play situations).

[axman]

I have followed, with some difficulty, the "Defective Trick" thread in the "Laws and Rulings" forum. It is now clear that pran's position is that the parenthetical clause of L67B is in fact definitional. blackshoe seems to have joined the "L67 is not applicable" camp. And between bluejak's posts and other people's commentaries on his posts, I now have no idea what bluejak's viewpoint actually is. :lol:

 

What is obvious is that the 201x version of L67 could do with a rewrite. To start with, the term "defective trick" should be defined. The status of the parenthetical clause in 67B (definition or example) should be clarified. Hence this thread: what should the new L67 look like?

 

As a rough starting point, I propose: "When a player fails to contribute exactly one card to a trick, and a member of his side plays (or designates a card to be played) to a subsequent trick, the former trick is defective."

 

Then:

• The "establishment" of the defective trick occurs when the OS plays to the following trick, in line with revokes.
• Defective tricks which are currently dealt with under 67A continue to be subject to the same rectifications (offender supplies a missing card where needed, or is subject to 45E/58B when he has played too many cards). References to 45E and 58B are moved to a footnote, and a reference to 57 is added to cover the case where offender has failed to contribute a card. Need to check the consequences in the latter case.
• Note the current anomaly in 67A1 -- when offender supplies the missing card, it is not clear whether this affects the ownership of the trick, whether NOS's card can be withdrawn (and if so, who leads to the subsequent trick). Will need to add some clarification.
• Current 67B remains mostly the same, except for the first paragraph, which is simplified. Directors now determine whether there is a defective trick in the usual way (L85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts).
• The reference to L64A2 penalties is modified in order to clarify whether 64B and 64C are applicable (I have chosen to invoke the entire L64).

 

 

 

While this may sound discouraging, it is meant as encouragement to get your ducks lined up.

 

Theoretically, in the event that you construct satisfactory defective trick law [DTL], even good DTL, and were to displace the passage that occupies L67 the result would not be any more satisfactory than had you done nothing.

 

The reason is that there are upwards of 70000 issues concerning how L67 interacts with the remaining body of law. Issues being inconsistencies, conflicts, and such, which exist because of the way the remaining body of law was constructed and would not take into account the ‘improvements’ of the substituted passages.

 

You are quite correct to believe that the definition of defective trick is important- it being important to construct a satisfactory one; however you are not correct to believe that it is the place to start.

 

What you have to keep in mind is the importance of being consistent throughout the law and as such it is necessary to first know the definition of bridge. This is not an easy thing to know and from what you have written it suggests that you do not yet know what it is. Otherwise, without a satisfactory definition you will be ill placed to know when you are on target and when you are not. And otherwise, without a satisfactory definition you will be ill placed to judge what an irregularity is or what its appropriate solution is. But, with an accurate model, while it may not be an easy matter to craft good law, you will be in an excellent position to know you have succeeded or failed.

 

Best wishes

[mjj29]

As far as I can see the only difference is your introduction of making Law 67 dependent upon the subjective judgement whether a card has actually been played when missing (or found when it should not be) among the played cards, instead of the current understanding of Law 67 which solely depends upon the objective fact whether there is an inconsistency in the number of cards (still) held by a player and the number of tricks yet to be played when his total number of cards at this player's disposal is correct.

 

That is, indeed the difference and this distinction is the direct cause of 8 pages of discussion in the other thread. I'd like to dispute your claim of "the current understanding" - certainly _your_ current understanding, but I (amongst other, more prestigious, views) don't understand it as that.

 

Your proposal unnecessarily opens the door for futile discussions whether or not a card had been played.

 

Fou may have the futile discussion on whether the card was played to the first trick or to the second trick. The player can for instance argue that he did not play it to the first trick but just lost it on the table. And please do not depend on Law 12 to solve all problems, it is designed to cater for unforeseen circumstances.

 

While this may be true in some cases it would certainly be nice to deal with the case there is no dispute in the clearly simplest and most correct manner. This is not the only place where the director is required to determine facts and I think this is less contentious than determining whether there has been a BIT or (as happenned today) whether declarer had 'held face up touching or nearly touching the table or in a position to indicate it had been played' a card from hand before playing from dummy - or whether he had realised his mistake before it was too late. In fact (as can be seen from more reliance on L64C and in the new L27) the laws are moving towards more judgements to be made by the director.

 

To make it easier though, perhaps it would be reasonable for an additional paragraph to say "if the director cannot determine whether a card was played then he shall deem it to have been played if the card is among a player's quitted tricks and not otherwise" to serve as a guide for contentious cases.

 

I think the suggested law 67 is good and would be happy to see it in the next edition of the laws. I still don't know whether we can propose such things to the WBF directly or not though.

[pran]

To make it easier though, perhaps it would be reasonable for an additional paragraph to say "if the director cannot determine whether a card was played then he shall deem it to have been played if the card is among a player's quitted tricks and not otherwise" to serve as a guide for contentious cases.

 

I think the suggested law 67 is good and would be happy to see it in the next edition of the laws. I still don't know whether we can propose such things to the WBF directly or not though.

What is then left of the difference between the current Law 67 and your proposal? In most cases a card will have been played if, and only if it is located among the quitted cards.

 

Very seldom, if ever, will a director be interested in a player's statement like: "I don't understand why I have that card in my hand because I did play it", or: "I don't understand why that card is located among the quitted cards because I never played it".

 

You are free to submit proposals to WBFLC - through your national authority. So your first step will be to convince them that your proposal has merits.

[mjj29]

What is then left of the difference between the current Law 67 and your proposal? In most cases a card will have been played if, and only if it is located among the quitted cards.

 

Very seldom, if ever, will a director be interested in a player's statement like: "I don't understand why I have that card in my hand because I did play it", or: "I don't understand why that card is located among the quitted cards because I never played it".

The difference will be that if all the players say "the 2H was played to trick 3, look it's missing from its place among the quitted tricks" you simply put it back there. In particular, in the original thread, if someone is merely late turning the quitted card from dummy, you just turn it over. TBH, that's what I believe L67 already says, but there seems to be some disagreement.

 

If a player makes such a statement I think it will usually be fairly easily substantiated by the other players.

[iviehoff]

Without having scrutinized this suggestion too carefully I have the impression that it essentially expresses the same law that applies today.

You surprise me. That is the position I have been trying to persuade you of, though you seem to have been arguing against me. You have been arguing that the parenthetical clause is the definition, not the example. You have been arguing that a trick is defective if the cards we find in it among the quitted cards in the table are not four; whereas dburn and I have been arguing that a trick should be defective only if we rule that in fact the players did not play one card each to it, irrespective of the imperfect disposition of the played cards.

 

But in fact the wording of Law 67 does not describe any implementable law, so anyone interpreting has to play a bit fast and loose.

[pran]

The difference will be that if all the players say "the 2H was played to trick 3, look it's missing from its place among the quitted tricks" you simply put it back there. In particular, in the original thread, if someone is merely late turning the quitted card from dummy, you just turn it over. TBH, that's what I believe L67 already says, but there seems to be some disagreement.

 

If a player makes such a statement I think it will usually be fairly easily substantiated by the other players.

The player will face a very hard time explaining to me how his "played" 2H had found its way back to his hand again.

 

And please avoid confusing this discussion with late play to the trick in progress (Law 67A) or missing cards (Law 14). This discussion should concentrate of already quitted tricks "containing" too few or too many cards as demonstrated when a player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards. (Law 67B)

[iviehoff]

... I propose: "When a player fails to contribute exactly one card to a trick, and a member of his side plays (or designates a card to be played) to a subsequent trick, the former trick is defective."

 

Then:

• The "establishment" of the defective trick occurs when the OS plays to the following trick, in line with revokes.
• Defective tricks which are currently dealt with under 67A continue to be subject to the same rectifications (offender supplies a missing card where needed, or is subject to 45E/58B when he has played too many cards). References to 45E and 58B are moved to a footnote, and a reference to 57 is added to cover the case where offender has failed to contribute a card. Need to check the consequences in the latter case.
• Note the current anomaly in 67A1 -- when offender supplies the missing card, it is not clear whether this affects the ownership of the trick, whether NOS's card can be withdrawn (and if so, who leads to the subsequent trick). Will need to add some clarification.
• Current 67B remains mostly the same, except for the first paragraph, which is simplified. Directors now determine whether there is a defective trick in the usual way (L85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts).
• The reference to L64A2 penalties is modified in order to clarify whether 64B and 64C are applicable (I have chosen to invoke the entire L64).

Actually, I think that the first words of 67A are a perfectly good definition of defective trick. "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick..."

Actually, they are something better than a definition of a defective trick, they are description of the situation in which Law 67A applies. This is what we want most of all for a law, a description of the circumstances in which you apply that law.

 

The current problem with Law 67 is that those words are only in 67A, and not in 67B. So currently it is unclear when precisely when Law 67B applies. Pran has been saying "if you can't find exactly one card from each player in the quitted cards, and the quitted card isn't merely misplaced, eg dropped on the floor, you MUST apply Law 67B". But it doesn't say that, because it doesn't tell us when we must apply it, rather than first looking for prior offences, rectifying them, and then seeing if we still have defective tricks.

 

If we put those words currently introducing 67A instead as an introduction for the whole law, before the division into A and B, put a colon after them, and then had both 67A and 67B applying only when those words are satisfied, the law would be largely fixed. And in fact Pran's claim would now be wrong. Law 67 would not apply merely to problems with the quitted cards, it would apply precisely when (the director believes or rules that) "a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick". The second fix would be to delete the parenthetical clause, because if it is merely an example, we don't actually need it, (or at least put "eg" in front of it).

 

But, actually, this is not the end of the matter. And I can understand why Pran and Bluejak want to apply 67B in a wider range of circumstances. The current law (if we interpret it as above) fails to tell us what to do in an important situation, what to do if a card that has been played has not been correctly placed among the quitted cards. This is what Pran and Bluejak are telling us to apply the 67B to. This is what quite a lot of us have distaste about. Pran is at least happy to pick a dropped quitted card up off the floor (or out of the albatross's stomach) and put it back among the quitted cards, and not apply 67B in that case. But Bluejak seems to argue that 67B is potentially applicable even in that case.

 

So what we need is a separate law to tell us what to do when a card which has already been played is no longer found arranged according to L65, which tells us what to do with a played card after playing it, and where to put it. For my money, we need a law that tells us what to do iif there is a breach of Law 65.

 

I propose something like the following (and I don't claim this is perfect legal drafting):

"If attention is drawn to a card which has been played but which has not been correctly disposed in accordance with Law 65:

A: If the card had gone missing and cannot be found, but is agreed to have been played to the trick, it shall be deemed to be correctly arranged as in Law 65, and a substitute card from another deck may if convenient hold its place.

B: If the card has been misplaced, or not turned at the correct time, but does not otherwise affect the normal play of the hand, it shall be turned if necessary, and if necessary restored to its correct place. The Director also so rules whenever the card is found elsewhere among the played cards, but is merely disarranged and has not been played to another trick.

C: If the card is found in among the unplayed cards, it shall be removed from there, and placed face down in its correct place among the played cards. Additionally, in the event that it is found among the unplayed cards of the dummy, the fact of its apparent presence there as a card available for play shall be treated as misinformation to the defending side, if the defending side have been misled into thinking that the card was still availabe for play.

D: If the card is found to have been played a second time, or on subsequent occasions, it shall be deemed not to have been played other than when it was first played, and it shall be restored to its correct place among the played cards in accordance with Law 65. Law 67 applies to any tricks where the card was played subsequent to when it was first played. For avoidance of doubt, in the event that Law 67B is applicable, this does not change the ownership of the trick, except as provided for in the application of the revoke penalties to the trick under Law 67B1. In the event that the card played a second time is one of two cards contributed to that trick by the player, Law 67B1 shall apply except that the player need not contribute an additional card to the trick. For avoidance of doubt, if the application of the revoke penalty does not do equity, Law 64C shall apply.

E: If it cannot be agreed by the parties which cards were played to which tricks, the director shall rule on the balance of the evidence, and on any doubtful point shall rule first against any side he judges has interfered with the other side's played cards, and second against any side which has not maintained its played cards in good order."

Edited May 18, 2011 by iviehoff

[iviehoff]

This discussion should concentrate of already quitted tricks "containing" too few or too many cards as demonstrated when a player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards. (Law 67B)

No; that is your interpretation of Law 67B. There is no reason why law 67B "should" apply to this situation. The OP and I would like a Law 67B which applies to tricks where people have played the wrong number of cards, rather than one that applies when people have misarranged the quitted cards. That is why I hvae proposed a new and different law (or in fact an prolongation of Law 65) which applies to misplaced quitted cards, and, hopefully, merely encapsulates the common sense people mostly currently apply in that situation.

[pran]

No; that is your interpretation of Law 67B. There is no reason why law 67B "should" apply to this situation. The OP and I would like a Law 67B which applies to tricks where people have played the wrong number of cards, rather than one that applies when people have misarranged the quitted cards. That is why I hvae proposed a new and different law (or in fact an prolongation of Law 65) which applies to misplaced quitted cards, and, hopefully, merely encapsulates the common sense people mostly currently apply in that situation.

Law 67B is not about a player having (just) misarranged his quitted cards; it is about the situation where there must be a defective trick (other than the trick in progress) from the fact that the number of cards quitted by, and still in the hand of a player is inconsistent with the number of tricks played so far.

[iviehoff]

Law 67B is not about a player having (just) misarranged his quitted cards; it is about the situation where there must be a defective trick (other than the trick in progress) from the fact that the number of cards quitted by, and still in the hand of a player is inconsistent with the number of tricks played so far.

Your wording of your beliefs are of course better than mine, but I was aware that was precisely what yo believed when I wrote what I did. It does not have to be like that. The fact you mention does not have to be the defining condition of defective trick. We can rather deal with the situation in different ways according to how it actually arose. Rather than assuming that someone played the wrong number of cards to a trick when that fact arises, let us find out if in fact they did, and deal with it according to how it arose. We can write our laws in this way if we want to. It works. It is cleaner. But we would benefit from an explicit law rectifying offences against Law 65 in order to get there. I offered you a draft of one.

 

We can instead define a defective trick in the way it is defined in the opening words of 67A. If in fact a card was contributed by each player to each trick, we do not have to say it is a defective trick, regardless of where we find the card. We can instead have a law that tells us to put the card back (or substitute it if lost). If I attempt to play a card a second time, we can have a law that says it is not played that second time.

 

Yes, sometimes we will not be able to tell exactly why things turned out in the mess they did, but let that not restrict us from doing the sensible thing in the majority of cases when we can how the mess arose. The Director will have to make his best judgment what to do when there is a mess he cannot fix it.

 

So, suppose I put my hand face down on the table, and I accidentally pick up one of the played cards with them when I pick them up again. Let us not now say that trick is defective. I discover it before I play it again. It would be best if I could just put it back without sanction; there is no damage to anyone, so we do not need there to be any consequences. (The UI of sight of a played card is an issue, but let us deal with that as we would normally.) I can justify this as a ruling already under the current laws: let me read Law 65, find an irregularity, rectify it. Now after that rectification, Law 67 is uninvolved. But perhaps better to rewrite the laws to make that clear.

 

If I get as far as playing the card a second time, let us call the second trick I played it to the defective trick, not the first one: let no card be permitted to be played twice. Again, I can justify this under teh current laws by rectifying the offence against law 65 before I start reading Law 67; if I do that, then I will find it is the second trick that is defective. But perhaps better to rewrite the laws to clarify it.

 

Suppose a card played from dummy (eg by calling it) is not physically taken from dummy's unplayed cards. If it is not played again, let us turn it and put it among the played cards, even if declarer has played a card to the next trick.

 

This is what I want the laws to say. If they have to be rewritten to achieve that, so be it. I offered a redrafting to achieve it more surely in a recent post. But many people currently find the imperfectly written laws are better interpreted in this way already.

[pran]

...........

so many words which I could not bother to study.

What is the real problem?

Not the number of tricks played and which side won each of them, this has already been agreed upon.

 

The real problem is that when a certain number of tricks are still to be played a player holds either too few or too many cards in his hand. That is an irregularity preventing "normal" play on these remaining tricks.

 

How do we rectify this problem?

 

We could of course just abandon the board and go on with the next. Instead we apply Law 13E if we find an extra card not belonging to the deal, Law 14 if we find that a card is missing, Law 67A if the irregularity is simply that a player has played too many cards or not yet played to the current trick.

 

And we apply Law 67B if we find that somehow a player apparently has either "played" too many cards or not played at all to a trick that has already been quitted.

[blackshoe]

The player will face a very hard time explaining to me how his "played" 2H had found its way back to his hand again.

 

And please avoid confusing this discussion with late play to the trick in progress (Law 67A) or missing cards (Law 14). This discussion should concentrate of already quitted tricks "containing" too few or too many cards as demonstrated when a player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards. (Law 67B)

 

Yesterday, as dummy, I was writing the contract down on my score sheet when the declarer called for a card from the dummy. I said "played" to indicate that I'd heard the instruction. At that instant, the TD walked up and asked for my help with a ruling. When I was able to put my attention back at the table, there were three cards played to the next trick. Had I not remembered that I hadn't turned the card from the previous trick (and I almost didn't) the damn thing would have sat there until somebody else noticed it - probably about trick 12.

 

I have seen players absent-mindedly put their played card back in their hand. You seem not to believe it can happen. I'm astonished — you've been directing longer than I have.

[iviehoff]

so many words which I coulc not bother to study

Which in fact you said, but you edited a quote from me to look like I said it. Why should I even bother to respond to you. Well I shall be polite and try to help you.

What is the real problem?

The real problem, I hope briefly enough for you, is as follows.

(1) "(F)rom the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards" is not a good criterion for identifying "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards", since the former can instead arise from a violation of Law 65 ("Arrangement of Tricks").*

(2) We do not have a law which deals directly with violations of Law 65

(3) In the absence of such a law, you are interpreting Law 67 so that it deals with equally both with certain violations of Law 65 and "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards", without regard to how the situation arose.

(4) It would be desirable to deal with violations of Law 65 distinctly from "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards", since we can normally tell the difference, rather than treating them as the same thing.

 

Short enough for you? If so, perhaps you can go back and look at how I deal with it.

 

*Edit. In fact it's worse than that. The criterion also fails to identify certain violations, such as when a 3 card trick is balanced by a 5 card trick.

Edited May 18, 2011 by iviehoff

[mjj29]

What is the real problem?

Not the number of tricks played and which side won each of them, this has already been agreed upon.

 

The real problem is that when a certain number of tricks are still to be played a player holds either too few or too many cards in his hand. That is an irregularity preventing "normal" play on these remaining tricks.

 

How do we rectify this problem?

 

We could of course just abandon the board and go on with the next. Instead we apply Law 13E if we find an extra card not belonging to the deal, Law 14 if we find that a card is missing, Law 67A if the irregularity is simply that a player has played too many cards or not yet played to the current trick.

 

And we apply Law 67B if we find that somehow a player apparently has either "played" too many cards or not played at all to a trick that has already been quitted.

You may have missed that this thread is in "Changing laws and regulations". In this thread I do not wish to speculate whether we should be reading the current L67 as you do or as I do. However, this thread is suggesting a new wording for certain laws - In fact I see two suggestions which both have a similar effect (iviehoff's suggestion is even more thorough and I would favour it, although I suspect the WBFLC will want to keep their word count down). What do you think about changing the current law to the suggested new one? I think it is a useful clarification providing a very sensible solution to this problem.

[pran]

You may have missed that this thread is in "Changing laws and regulations". In this thread I do not wish to speculate whether we should be reading the current L67 as you do or as I do. However, this thread is suggesting a new wording for certain laws - In fact I see two suggestions which both have a similar effect (iviehoff's suggestion is even more thorough and I would favour it, although I suspect the WBFLC will want to keep their word count down). What do you think about changing the current law to the suggested new one? I think it is a useful clarification providing a very sensible solution to this problem.

No, I have not missed which group we are within.

And I have (I believe) already pointed out that the suggested change of Law 67 will not solve any problem, but in certain circumstances may actually create new.

 

In fact, except for certain possibly unfortunate terms that apparently confuse someone reading Law 67 I do consider this law easily applied without any need for change to fulfill its intentions.

 

A separate issue is of course if one wants to change the intention of this law, but I have noticed little (if any at all) arguments for such change.

 

And I have pointed out the correct procedure for anybody who wants to suggest changes to the laws, they should submit their suggestion through their national authority.

[pran]

Which in fact you said, but you edited a quote from me to look like I said it. Why should I even bother to respond to you. Well I shall be polite and try to help you.

 

The real problem, I hope briefly enough for you, is as follows.

(1) "(F)rom the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards" is not a good criterion for identifying "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards", since the former can instead arise from a violation of Law 65 ("Arrangement of Tricks").*

How?

(2) We do not have a law which deals directly with violations of Law 65

Sure we have. See for instance Law 66D

(3) In the absence of such a law, you are interpreting Law 67 so that it deals with equally both with certain violations of Law 65 and "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards", without regard to how the situation arose.

That is where Law 67B could be unfortunate in that a reader who doesn't understand this law mistakenly concentrates on the question how the situation arose rather than on the situation itself. It is the situation (a player has too many or too few cards in his hand) that is the problem preventing "normal" play of the remaining tricks.

(4) It would be desirable to deal with violations of Law 65 distinctly from "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards", since we can normally tell the difference, rather than treating them as the same thing.

There is no direct relation between Law 65 and Law 67; only Law 67 is concerned with a player having an incorrect number of cards in his hand.

Short enough for you? If so, perhaps you can go back and look at how I deal with it.

 

*Edit. In fact it's worse than that. The criterion also fails to identify certain violations, such as when a 3 card trick is balanced by a 5 card trick.

This is not a case for Law 67, it is a case for Law 44 and may possibly also involve Law 61 et al.

[iviehoff]

That is where Law 67B could be unfortunate in that a reader who doesn't understand this law mistakenly concentrates on the question how the situation arose rather than on the situation itself.

This is you explaining how you currently interpret the present law, rather than listening to us telling you we don't want it to do that.

[iviehoff]

How?

I gave two examples in one of my posts that you didn't read. But to help you, here they are again. (1) You put your cards face down on the table and pick them up with one of the played cards. (2) Dummy fails to place the played card in the played position. Other examples have bene given.

Sure we have. See for instance Law 66D

It does not deal with most of the situations in the proposed new law I gave a detailed proposed text for dealing with violations of Law 65.

[iviehoff]

This is not a case for Law 67

Again, this is you explaining how you currently interpret Law 67, rather than listening to us telling you that we would like this to be a case that Law 67 ought to deal with.

 

This is the "Changing Laws and Regulations" group. We have a thread here because we do not like how you interpret Law 67. We want it to be different. So do not keep coming back telling us "Law 67 is like this". We do not want it to be like that.

 

(We don't even agree it is like you say it is. But since it is clearly deficient, we may as well say how we would like to be, and then rewrite it to make sure it is like that).

[alphatango]

EDIT: I forgot to refresh the page before I posted, so I wrote the following without seeing posts in this thread from #17 onwards. Apologies if I am repeating things that have already been said.

 

* * *

 

In responding to you, pran, I do want to note that you began your response to my OP with "Without having scrutinized this suggestion too carefully", and your response to iviehoff with "so many words which I could not bother to study". I would simply point out that a sensible debate may be more likely if you care to read and try to understand posts written by other people, even if they are somewhat lengthy. We might surprise you with a reasonable argument or two. :P

 

 

What is the real problem?

Not the number of tricks played and which side won each of them, this has already been agreed upon.

 

The real problem is that when a certain number of tricks are still to be played a player holds either too few or too many cards in his hand. That is an irregularity preventing "normal" play on these remaining tricks.

 

I think this is the root of the difference of opinion. In my opinion, an ostensibly completed bridge trick should consist of exactly four cards, of which exactly one has been contributed by each player; for it to be otherwise is an irregularity, and is "the real problem". A failure to hold the right number of cards is a common consequence, but that is something to be dealt with when we construct a sensible rectification. In other words, I do not care if North has ten cards in his hand with ten tricks yet to be played -- if he played two cards to trick 1 and no cards at all to trick 3, I think there is a problem.

 

 

 

* * *

 

I concur with most of iviehoff's posts at #11 and #14. I am not quite sure how I feel about the proposed extensions to L65 yet; on the face of it, they are sensible specifications of what should happen, but I will need to think about it a little more.

 

Actually, I think that the first words of 67A are a perfectly good definition of defective trick. "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick..."

Actually, they are something better than a definition of a defective trick, they are description of the situation in which Law 67A applies. This is what we want most of all for a law, a description of the circumstances in which you apply that law.

 

Indeed. I more or less reached that conclusion myself, so in the actual draft of a new L67 (in my OP), you will notice that this wording is retained -- almost. The change I made was to consider a trick defective only when the player's side has played to the next trick. I'm not sure I like this now; I may prefer the current wording. At the time, I was thinking of something like the following:

 

 

South is declaring a spade contract, and leads the HK; West covers with the HA, North follows with the H3, and East pauses to consider ruffing with a worthless trump. Playing quickly, and assuming that the HA was holding, South, West and North all turn their cards and West leads to the next trick. Now everybody catches on and calls the director. What should happen? We require East to play a legal card to the HK-A-3, obviously, but what next?

 

Well, who is at fault? West, clearly, for he didn't wait for the trick to be complete before playing to the next one. (North and South to a much lesser extent for turning their cards early.) So it seems OK to apply the L67B rectification.

 

Now suppose the trick, beginning with South, was HA-2-3-(no card). Now it feels like it is South who is primarily at fault when he leads to the next trick, with East-west essentially not at fault (yet). So I think we should require East to contribute a card to the heart trick. If he discards, South's next lead stands. If he ruffs, South has now led out of turn and the defenders have the usual options.

 

But if West plays to South's lead, then East-West are back to being at fault, so we hit them with 67B.

 

 

Is that sensible? If not, what should we be doing? And what about the case where the trick proceeds:

 

South HA, West H2, North H3, East H4; South HK...

 

West: "Didn't you already play the H4 a couple of tricks back?"

East: "Oops, I suppose I did."

Director: "Well, you didn't actually contribute a card to the previous trick, so please face a card you could legally have played."

East chooses a trump. Now what do we want to happen?

 

 

* * *

 

 

Finally, a less-related comment.

 

Theoretically, in the event that you construct satisfactory defective trick law [DTL], even good DTL, and were to displace the passage that occupies L67 the result would not be any more satisfactory than had you done nothing.

 

The reason is that there are upwards of 70000 issues concerning how L67 interacts with the remaining body of law. Issues being inconsistencies, conflicts, and such, which exist because of the way the remaining body of law was constructed and would not take into account the 'improvements' of the substituted passages.

 

First, that is not a sufficiently good reason to give up on trying to improve the law. Second, I would be interested in your list of the first 70000 such issues. I would settle for, say, the top 10.

 

What you have to keep in mind is the importance of being consistent throughout the law and as such it is necessary to first know the definition of bridge. This is not an easy thing to know and from what you have written it suggests that you do not yet know what it is.

 

I appreciate that you wrote your words as encouragement and in good faith. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could (a) show at least a tenuous connection between my words and the idea that I do not "know the definition of bridge"; (b) contribute something constructive by, for example, identifying where you believe either the current law or the proposal is flawed.

[axman]

 

 

 

* * *

 

 

Finally, a less-related comment.

 

 

 

First, that is not a sufficiently good reason to give up on trying to improve the law. Second, I would be interested in your list of the first 70000 such issues. I would settle for, say, the top 10.

 

 

 

I appreciate that you wrote your words as encouragement and in good faith. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could (a) show at least a tenuous connection between my words and the idea that I do not "know the definition of bridge"; (b) contribute something constructive by, for example, identifying where you believe either the current law or the proposal is flawed.

 

I was attempting to set you on a course that would minimize the amount of backtracking. I have walked the path you are doing now. On May 30,1997 I was on the worse end of two mangled L25 rulings [though I believe there is no good end to a bad ruling] and in June I decided that a lot of my irritation lie in the construction of law and that I could do a better job at it; no, not merely better but a good job. I had ‘insights’ and dug right in. after a day and a half I discovered that I had failed- and miserably. This discovery came when I went to insert L25 into the book and it did not fit. Anyway, I realized the source of my failure to be the fact that I did not know what bridge is. You see, even if you don’t see, is that the law must be whole and to be whole no passage can be permitted to conflict with the synthesis. I spent a year listening, interviewing, studying rulings, studying TFLB in my attempt to distill what bridge is- before I went about my L25 project.

 

As I said originally ‘Otherwise, without a satisfactory definition you will be ill placed to know when you are on target and when you are not.’ So, had you known what bridge is you would have started there and not with:

 

‘To start with, the term "defective trick" should be defined.’

 

With regard to enumerating the issues, it is not my inclination to undertake several hundred thousand pages of work without compensation. I would need $100US per hour in advance and I type about 5 words per minute.

 

But to give you an idea of what I meant. In the fall of 1996 I asked a member of the ACBLLC [who happened to live down the street] as to why [as in, is it an appropriate remedy?] when correcting an old defective trick missing a card that when the player has a card of the suit [as in could have followed suit] he gets no revoke penalty while a player who was dealt a void would always be penalized for a revoke. He wouldn’t touch it. But he suggested I discuss it with blml. Everyone on blml who had something to say told me that I was quite wrong headed about it.