Did he play to the next trick?

[lamford]

I don't think it does. Both "four cards" and "in rotation" come after "unless flawed".

It defines a trick as: "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". The only flaw permitted is not to be composed of four cards. The cards need to be contributed by each player in rotation regardless of how many there are.

 

If it said: "the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, unless flawed composed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead", then I would agree with you.

[blackshoe]

It defines a trick as: "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". The only flaw permitted is not to be composed of four cards. The cards need to be contributed by each player in rotation regardless of how many there are.

 

If it said: "the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, unless flawed composed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead", then I would agree with you.

Perhaps someone should ask Grattan to parse this definition for us - or to present the question to the LC.

[lamford]

Perhaps someone should ask Grattan to parse this definition for us - or to present the question to the LC.

I think we know what the definition of "trick" is, and the simplest is to put "usually" before "in rotation". There are far more important things wrong with the Laws than a slight miswording in the definitions! It is not always "one contributed by each player" either. Sometimes it is none and sometimes two or more!

[campboy]

I don't think there is a miswording. I think you are misparsing the definition.

[blackshoe]

I think we know what the definition of "trick" is…

Apparently we don't, or were the folks arguing about it just doing so for the Hell of it?

[lamford]

I don't think there is a miswording. I think you are misparsing the definition.

So, you would interpret: "A football team, composed unless somone has been red-carded of eleven players, three of whom can be substituted in the game ..." to mean that a team which has had a player sent off is not necessarily allowed three substitutions?

[pran]

My personal understanding of the laws is that WBFLC in Law 45D thinks of both sides having played to the next trick in a regular way, i.e. with a lead and a subsequent play as described in Law 44 (without any irregularity).

On what basis did you come to that personal understanding? If the WBFLC really thinks that, why hasn't it issued one of its minutes to make it clear?

 

It seems to me just as logical that the key point about the definition of the cut-off point is that it is the point when both sides have made some action beyond the trick where the irregularity occurred, even if that action is irregular.

I do not know if there has been any minute on the matter, I don't believe there is. And I think this is simply because the question has never been raised.

 

My personal understanding is the result of working with the laws since before 1980 and from knowledge of how the laws have developed since around 1930.

[iviehoff]

I do not know if there has been any minute on the matter, I don't believe there is. And I think this is simply because the question has never been raised.

OK, there is no established position, and I'll put it on my list of difficult points in the laws then.

[campboy]

So, you would interpret: "A football team, composed unless somone has been red-carded of eleven players, three of whom can be substituted in the game ..." to mean that a team which has had a player sent off is not necessarily allowed three substitutions?

I would interpret that sentence fragment as saying that if no-one has been red-carded there will be 11 players, 3 of whom can be substituted. It sounds like there are 3 specified substitutable players, though I know that is not the actual rule. It does not say whether a red card changes the number of players, the number which can be substituted, or both. Again I can fill in the gaps from my knowledge of the rules.

[barmar]

I think we know what the definition of "trick" is, and the simplest is to put "usually" before "in rotation".

Many irregularities result in things not strictly meeting their normal definitions. I think the Laws can be understood as if they had such qualifiers everywhere that it's necessary to allow the laws on infractions to be interpreted reasonably.

[lamford]

Many irregularities result in things not strictly meeting their normal definitions. I think the Laws can be understood as if they had such qualifiers everywhere that it's necessary to allow the laws on infractions to be interpreted reasonably.

I agree, and I intepret "both sides play to the next trick" as meaning "both sides play to the next trick in a normal way", much as pran says. But several TDs, including the ones in this case, are adopting a less logical approach.

[bluejak]

Apparently we don't, or were the folks arguing about it just doing so for the Hell of it?

I think they are arguing for the hell of it, trying to make this BLML. That is why I am steering clear of this frankly unnecessary argument, which does not improve people's ability to give rulings, which is the main aim of these forums, at least the first three.

[c_corgi]

L45D allows the card declarer called from dummy to be played, thereby creating a sensible bridge result rather than following a potentially nonsensical line. It imposes an arbitrary limit of both sides playing to the next trick as the point where it may become impractical/undesirable to unwind the play. If it is unclear from the laws whether both sides have played to the next trick, but the card which may have met this criterion did not advance play in any meaningful way (as here) it seems obvious to err on the side of unwinding the play so that the correct card is played.

[dwar0123]

L45D allows the card declarer called from dummy to be played, thereby creating a sensible bridge result rather than following a potentially nonsensical line. It imposes an arbitrary limit of both sides playing to the next trick as the point where it may become impractical/undesirable to unwind the play. If it is unclear from the laws whether both sides have played to the next trick, but the card which may have met this criterion did not advance play in any meaningful way (as here) it seems obvious to err on the side of unwinding the play so that the correct card is played.

Good lord, hope this is true, cause reading this thread I was beginning to think the laws were nuts and no one was noticing.

[blackshoe]

In spite of the last two posts, I have to say I agree with the TD and AC that dummy's placing the wrong card in the played position cannot be changed [Law 45D]. I share mamos' concerns, but I don't see that making any difference to what the law says.

[iviehoff]

If it is unclear from the laws whether both sides have played to the next trick, but the card which may have met this criterion did not advance play in any meaningful way (as here) it seems obvious to err on the side of unwinding the play so that the correct card is played.

It seems to me once you have two cards face up on the table, you have just as much an unwinding job whether they are played regularly or irregularly. So whilst I agree with your initial sentiment, I come to the opposite conclusion.

[c_corgi]

It seems to me once you have two cards face up on the table, you have just as much an unwinding job whether they are played regularly or irregularly. So whilst I agree with your initial sentiment, I come to the opposite conclusion.

 

A card played from declarers hand or a defenders is a less desirable unwind than one from dummy, because sight of a card from a hidden hand might affect the subsequent "bridge result".

 

A card intended as a lead to the next trick on the assumption that the "correct" cards had been played to the previous is a more desirable unwind than where a card has been deliberately selected in following to the actual lead to the next trick, again because the latter would provide extraneous information.

 

Both of the above suggest it is less of an unwinding job in the OP case.

 

Aside from considerations relating to the desirability of unwinding, the laws are unclear whether the point of no return has been reached. That being the case we have one interpretation available which leads to a sensible result and one that does not.

[sailoranch]

I don't get it. Why is the more reasonable interpretation the one that deems declarer's play to have never have been made at all in order to let him correct his partner's misplay after the correction period prescribed in the Laws?

 

Declarer followed to trick two, and after the trick was quitted, he called for a card while presumably looking at a dummy containing the wrong spades. The Laws specify how long he has to notice the error and correct it, and he didn't.

 

I don't understand this playing to the trick "in a normal way." Designating a card in dummy seems to be the normal way to play a card from dummy. If the problem is that both players were trying to lead, then 58A applies and North's play is deemed to have been made subsequently. It doesn't say anything about completely erasing one of the plays. If there had been no dummy error before and two players tried to lead at the same time, you wouldn't just wipe out the improper lead; it would be deemed a subsequent play as 58A provides. I don't see why North gets special treatment just because he has an error from a previous trick to correct.

 

It also doesn't seem right to just take back the play because it would be a revoke or a play out of turn. We apply the same law as we would if there weren't the previous error to correct. Again, I don't see why declarer is entitled to pretend plays didn't happen just because they are illegal AND he has an error that he just noticed that he wants to correct.

 

I don't buy the argument that both sides weren't playing to the next trick. Both West and declarer seemed to be playing cards because each thought he won the trick that was just quitted, and as a result, each thought he was on lead to the next trick.

 

Am I nuts for thinking the laws are clear in this case?