What's that queen doing?

[bluejak]

Dummy holds ♥ Q93. In the middle of the hand, LHO leads the ♥J, declarer calls for the queen, RHO wins the ♥A and declarer plays her singleton heart.

 

Now RHO leads another heart, declarer discards, LHO plays the ♥T, and declarer looks at dummy - to find the ♥Q is still there!

 

Apparently dummy forgot to turn the queen over after it had been played. While RHO knew it had gone from dummy, LHO had forgotten and felt damaged.

 

Apart from declarer, the other three players were very inexperienced, and in this case [a real case] there is no real damage, since the ♥T would presumably win the trick. But I did not want to make up a case, so I have given you a real case.

 

The question is, if LHO had been damaged, even though he should have realised the queen was not in dummy, would he be entitled to redress? Under which Law? Is dummy's failure to turn his card face down an infraction?

[blackshoe]

Answering your last question: no. It's an irregularity, but not an infraction. See Law 66, the definitions (Chapter 1 of the Laws) and the Introduction. As for the question what to do about it, the laws don't seem to say. :blink:

[Vampyr]

There are two offenders here -- third hand has led to the next trick before the previous one was quitted. Not sure if that has any bearing on the ruling, and I don't know what the ruling should be, but it is something to bear in mind.

[blackshoe]

Third hand has certainly done as you say, but which law has he offended?

[barmar]

Third hand has certainly done as you say, but which law has he offended?

We've been through this one many times before.

 

It's common practice for a player who wants to think before the next trick to keep his card faced -- quitting the trick is used as the signal that he's ready to let play resume. But no one has found a law that supports this, it's just tradition (and it probably shouldn't apply to dummy, since he has nothing to think about). In fact, 66A implies that it's possible for the next trick to commence before a player has quitted the trick from the previous one, since it gives rights that are denied in that case.

[barmar]

Dummy has violated 65A, hasn't he?

 

This reminds me of a thread we had a few months ago about a player inadvertently picking up one his quitted tricks and putting it back in his hand. Did we come to a concensus on that one, either? 67B says that when a player has too many cards in his hand we can conclude that a trick was defective. But then it goes on to describe what to do in the cases where too few or too many cards were played to the defective trick. Neither of these applies when the trick was played correctly, and the problem was with subsequent management of the quitted tricks.

[blackshoe]

We've been through this one many times before.

 

It's common practice for a player who wants to think before the next trick to keep his card faced -- quitting the trick is used as the signal that he's ready to let play resume. But no one has found a law that supports this, it's just tradition (and it probably shouldn't apply to dummy, since he has nothing to think about). In fact, 66A implies that it's possible for the next trick to commence before a player has quitted the trick from the previous one, since it gives rights that are denied in that case.

I don't think I've ever heard of dummy trying to delay play by keeping his card face up. As you say, this "tradition" shouldn't apply to him, and besides it is outwith the law. My point is that third hand, who led to the next trick, has committed no offense and is therefore not an offender.

[blackshoe]

Dummy has violated 65A, hasn't he?

Yes. There is no suggestion this violation should be penalized (see the Introduction to the Laws) and no rectification is specified in 65A. So now what?

[aguahombre]

I think that you would have to make up a case in order for us to see how there might be damage. That damn nine in dummy means it didn't matter whether the opening leader knew the Queen was a dead card or not when he played the ten.

 

If you did make up one where the play of the ten cost (difficult), I doubt there is any specific law to rely upon, but I would sure try to Probst it (23).

[Vampyr]

Dummy has violated 65A, hasn't he?

 

So has third hand, in a sense. We have been through this before; apparently the WBFLC didn't find it necessary to include a Law specifying that the tricks are played one at a time until everyone is out of cards, but perhaps custom and experience will be enough to convince us that this is the way the game is played.

 

This reminds me of a thread we had a few months ago about a player inadvertently picking up one his quitted tricks and putting it back in his hand. Did we come to a concensus on that one, either? 67B says that when a player has too many cards in his hand we can conclude that a trick was defective. But then it goes on to describe what to do in the cases where too few or too many cards were played to the defective trick. Neither of these applies when the trick was played correctly, and the problem was with subsequent management of the quitted tricks.

 

I might just go with 13F and call it a surplus card (if it is too late to just put the card back in the trick and go on from there).

[gnasher]

I think that you would have to make up a case in order for us to see how there might be damage.

Imagine that it was exactly as described by Bluejak, except that LHO didn't play the 10. Looking at Q9 in dummy, he know his 10 wasn't going to win, so he played low instead.

[gnasher]

It's an irregularity

So can't we use Law 23?

[Zelandakh]

I always find the laws hilarious in cases like this. We start with 45E1, which directs us to either 53 or 56. But 53 only concerns itself with LOOTs and 56 is merely a redirection to 54D (Declarer Refuses Opening Lead). Very helpful!

[iviehoff]

The underlying problem is that the law has no provision for putting a played card into, or back into, its proper place among the played cards (excluding those properly withdrawn) if it is later found somewhere else.

 

If we had such a provision in the law, a lot of these problems would go away. We could simply put the Q with the played cards where it belongs, and now there is no possibility of playing it again, the previous trick definitely isn't defective, and we can stop worrying about stupidities and get on with the game. We could probably also put in a few more words so that if a card is discovered to have been played a second time, it is put back into the trick where it was first played and it is the second trick that is defective. And that would stop a few more silly arguments.

 

In the present case, probably the best approach for players who don't like winning by application of law, is for the sides to agree to quit the Q late. But if the defenders want to lawyer it, they can try arguing that the preceding trick is now defective and see if they get a revoke penalty out of it.

[blackshoe]

So can't we use Law 23?

Sure, but that's not a complete solution. What do we do with the Queen?

[blackshoe]

The underlying problem is that the law has no provision for putting a played card into, or back into, its proper place among the played cards (excluding those properly withdrawn) if it is later found somewhere else.

 

If we had such a provision in the law, a lot of these problems would go away. We could simply put the Q with the played cards where it belongs, and now there is no possibility of playing it again, the previous trick definitely isn't defective, and we can stop worrying about stupidities and get on with the game. We could probably also put in a few more words so that if a card is discovered to have been played a second time, it is put back into the trick where it was first played and it is the second trick that is defective. And that would stop a few more silly arguments.

 

In the present case, probably the best approach for players who don't like winning by application of law, is for the sides to agree to quit the Q late. But if the defenders want to lawyer it, they can try arguing that the preceding trick is now defective and see if they get a revoke penalty out of it.

Setting aside your last paragraph, does the director have the power to rule as in your second paragraph, or does the omission of such law prohibit him from so ruling?

[gnasher]

Sure, but that's not a complete solution. What do we do with the Queen?

We turn it over, as required by Law 65A, and get on with our lives.

[aguahombre]

Sure, but that's not a complete solution. What do we do with the Queen?

Do you mean "How do we politely tell dummy what to do with it?" :rolleyes:

 

The moment of discovery that the Queen, played to the first trick (right?) was discovered to still be face-up over there with dummy's unplayed cards was apparently when the ten had been played to trick two, but dummy had not played to trick two.

 

I guess I am missing what the problem is. No damage has been done unless we let declarer use the already-played Queen again. Do we really need reference to some law's particular wording, here? Lose the Queen from dummy's unplayed cards, and tell Declarer that he may choose to play the nine or the three to this second trick.

 

If a particular directive is needed, look for one which charges the TD with the task of running the game in an orderly and equitable fashion.

[iviehoff]

Setting aside your last paragraph, does the director have the power to rule as in your second paragraph, or does the omission of such law prohibit him from so ruling?

Law 67 appears to say that once both sides have played to the next trick, you can't fix a defective trick as easily as that. It would be nice to have clarity on the point.

[gnasher]

Law 67 appears to say that once both sides have played to the next trick, you can't fix a defective trick as easily as that. It would be nice to have clarity on the point.

 

You're certainly right that the rules would benefit from clarification, but I don't agree that we have a defective trick. Declarer played ♥Q when he named it (Law 45B), so the trick is not defective: we merely have a played card that has not been turned down.

[Zelandakh]

But the trick is not defective by the definition in Law 67. The offender has played one, and only one, card to the defective trick. It is only that they have not quitted the card played to it. A defective trick is one where at least one of the players has played to it a number of cards other than one. The card has not become un-played to the trick just because it was not turned over! Otherwise defenders would be in the same situation when they leave their card face up and the next trick goes LHO - CHO - RHO. That is just craziness imho.

 

There seem to me only 3 ways of viewing the situation - either Dummy could have been aware of potential damage by not quitting the trick (23); or West's card could be judged to be based on misinformation (47E); or there is no infraction. 47E is perhaps a bit of a stretch but at least it would allow us to obtain a proper bridge result in a case where actual damage has occurred.

[gnasher]

But the trick is not defective by the definition in Law 67.

Part of the problem is that Law 67 doesn't contain a clearcut definition. In a previous discussion, some people argued that a defective trick occurs "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick", but others that one exists whenever "one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards".

[Zelandakh]

Unless you use the first definition, both 67A and 67B are completely meaningless. Two options are given: either an offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick or they have played more than one card to the trick. Common sense dictates that this acts as a definition since there is no provision for any other case.

[campboy]

There is IMO a difference between a) declarer calls for a card, which dummy places in a played position but then fails to turn over and b) declarer calls for a card and dummy doesn't do anything. In a) the card is among dummy's played cards and not in his hand, no matter which way up it is, so the trick is not defective (and the same applies to Zel's example of a defender leaving a card face up); in b) you could argue as gnasher suggests. I don't think it's clear from the OP which of the two actually happened.

[gnasher]

Unless you use the first definition, both 67A and 67B are completely meaningless. Two options are given: either an offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick or they have played more than one card to the trick. Common sense dictates that this acts as a definition since there is no provision for any other case.

 

I'm not sure how much meaning or common sense you'll find, but here's the earlier thread:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45509-defective-trick/