Law 67 - Defective Trick

[suprgrover]

Sure. Culbertson, a very nervy player who never liked to be at the table when dummy, was dummy, and a member of the Four Horsemen [Oswald Jacoby, perhaps?] was chewing gum. After some thought he tossed his gum wrapper on the table. Culbertson dumped dummy on the table, realised, and grabbed the dummy up again. But Jacoby had seen what he wanted to know and now found the killing lead.

 

It was David Burnstine.

[iviehoff]

New draft; not really sure how I feel about it yet. In an attempt to make it clear when it is too late to correct one's error, I have adopted the language concerning revokes. It makes the law longer but more precise, and it does (I think) achieve the objectives I outlined above at #45.

I like your general approach. But you don't deal with the situation when a card is played for the second time. We need to have something somewhere that says that a card once played is a phantom if apparently played again.

[alphatango]

I think that can (and logically should) go in Law 65 -- something approximating your suggested L65D, perhaps.

[axman]

Doubt about this may have existed before 2007. With the 2007 revision of Law 67B1{a} it should be clear that failure to lead or play a card to a trick (so that the trick has become defective) does indeed constitute a revoke.

 

The quoted law can be split into a list as follows:

Definition of Revoke

• Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44, or
  
• Failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit
  
  1. required by law, or
     
  2. specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity
     

constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

 

And I believe this is the correct way of reading that law.

 

The incongruity you point out (67B2b) labels the condition of a player being void (of the suit led) did not play a card to the trick. When remedied later via 67B2b the label is a revoke. The incongruity is that this label does not comport with the L61 enumerated definitions of revoke (which carries the condition of not following when able distinct from not playing at all).

 

 

If we might believe L61 then perhaps the lawmakers know that every time someone does not play to a trick he always could have followed suit (hehehe). That was the issue that the ACBLLC would not explain to me in 1996.

[pescetom]

The incongruity you point out (67B2b) labels the condition of a player being void (of the suit led) did not play a card to the trick. When remedied later via 67B2b the label is a revoke. The incongruity is that this label does not comport with the L61 enumerated definitions of revoke (which carries the condition of not following when able distinct from not playing at all).

 

 

If we might believe L61 then perhaps the lawmakers know that every time someone does not play to a trick he always could have followed suit (hehehe). That was the issue that the ACBLLC would not explain to me in 1996.

 

I think you mean 67B1b (failed to play a card) and not 67B2b (played more than one card).

If so then yes, L61 seems to have been written without considering this type of revoke (and is a bit too hermetic anyway). "failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law" might usefully be rewritten "failure to lead or play a specific card required by law, or any one card of a specific suit required by law, or any one card of the remaining suits when required by law" or something similar.

Having said that, it seems pretty clear that we should follow law 67 and "punish" this like a revoke.

 

Congratulations for the most obscure necro of 2022 so far B-)

[axman]

I think you mean 67B1b (failed to play a card) and not 67B2b (played more than one card).

 

Thank you for getting that correct. I originally :( wrote 67B1b :)

 

If so then yes, L61 seems to have been written without considering this type of revoke (and is a bit too hermetic anyway). "failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law" might usefully be rewritten "failure to lead or play a specific card required by law, or any one card of a specific suit required by law, or any one card of the remaining suits when required by law" or something similar.

Having said that, it seems pretty clear that we should follow law 67 and "punish" this like a revoke.

 

Congratulations for the most obscure necro of 2022 so far B-)

 

 

I find it curious your belief that failing to play to a trick in and of itself is a revoke. Nowhere in law except here is there such a connection. For instance, when someone plays out of turn, when the non offender adds his card the law does not say that he corrects his revoke.

 

In 1996 when a player's defective trick is remedied and he can add a card that follows suit he is not penalized for a revoke even though he could have followed suit (L61 definition of revoke) yet when he does not have such a card he is penalized for a revoke- even when at the time of the trick he already was void. This seemed wrong to me. My recollection is that in 1996 revoke was defined twice: in L61 and the definitions (as expected in L61 and as unexpected in definitions).

 

My suspicion is that my conversation with Dan Morse trickled to the ACBLLC and then trickled to the WBFLC which resulted in a response recorded in WBF2007. I think it can be said that the alteration in regards to a revoke occurring when offender could have followed suit is satisfactory; as for the condition when he was not able (at the time) to follow suit, I think the non alteration is wrong headed.

[pescetom]

Thank you for getting that correct. I originally :( wrote 67B1b :)

 

 

 

I find it curious your belief that failing to play to a trick in and of itself is a revoke. Nowhere in law except here is there such a connection. For instance, when someone plays out of turn, when the non offender adds his card the law does not say that he corrects his revoke.

 

In 1996 when a player's defective trick is remedied and he can add a card that follows suit he is not penalized for a revoke even though he could have followed suit (L61 definition of revoke) yet when he does not have such a card he is penalized for a revoke- even when at the time of the trick he already was void. This seemed wrong to me. My recollection is that in 1996 revoke was defined twice: in L61 and the definitions (as expected in L61 and as unexpected in definitions).

 

My suspicion is that my conversation with Dan Morse trickled to the ACBLLC and then trickled to the WBFLC which resulted in a response recorded in WBF2007. I think it can be said that the alteration in regards to a revoke occurring when offender could have followed suit is satisfactory; as for the condition when he was not able (at the time) to follow suit, I think the non alteration is wrong headed.

 

I have no idea what was going on back in 1996 or even 2016. I had just become a Director when covid first hit and defective tricks and revokes were temporarily (semi-definitively?) moved to the garbage bin of bridge law. But trying to get my head around such things again, I saw in this old thread people I respect arguing that failing to play to a trick is a revoke and it kind of made sense. I can see that one could define revoke to exclude it, but it's not clear what advantages that would bring or that the current laws desire it. I agree that, as often, things could be clearer and more consistent.

[barmar]

The Law says the player is "deemed to have revoked". They didn't actually revoke, so the definition of what constitutes a revoke is not really relevant. "Deem" means that we treat it as if they'd revoked, even though they didn't.

 

They could have put this condition into the definition of revoke to make things more consistent, but it's not a problem that they didn't.

[pescetom]

I agree, more or less.

It would have been nice to make things consistent (after ten years to think about it) but yes it wasn't essential this time (and may be academic next time).

[axman]

The Law says the player is "deemed to have revoked". They didn't actually revoke, so the definition of what constitutes a revoke is not really relevant. "Deem" means that we treat it as if they'd revoked, even though they didn't.

 

They could have put this condition into the definition of revoke to make things more consistent, but it's not a problem that they didn't.

This deem business is akin to a rule such as If you jaywalk you are deemed to have killed the President. Ok, the President is alive and you are deemed to have killed him. When there is a play out of turn is the skipped player told to correct his revoke?

[pran]

The Law says the player is "deemed to have revoked". They didn't actually revoke, so the definition of what constitutes a revoke is not really relevant. "Deem" means that we treat it as if they'd revoked, even though they didn't.

 

They could have put this condition into the definition of revoke to make things more consistent, but it's not a problem that they didn't.

 

 

I agree, more or less.

It would have been nice to make things consistent (after ten years to think about it) but yes it wasn't essential this time (and may be academic next time).

 

 

This deem business is akin to a rule such as If you jaywalk you are deemed to have killed the President. Ok, the President is alive and you are deemed to have killed him. When there is a play out of turn is the skipped player told to correct his revoke?

 

Apparently you have not bothered to familiarize yourselves with laws 44 through 66 before discussing law 67?

They all consern plays, correct procedures and irregularities during the play periode and must be understood as a whole.

[barmar]

This deem business is akin to a rule such as If you jaywalk you are deemed to have killed the President. Ok, the President is alive and you are deemed to have killed him. When there is a play out of turn is the skipped player told to correct his revoke?

Yes, the President is still alive. But the point of "deemed" is to say that the rectification is the same. The analogy would be to say that the punishment for jaywalking is the same as for killing the President.