Is this revoke established?

[VixTD]

Declarer calls for a diamond from dummy, RHO and declarer follow suit, and LHO ruffs. LHO then drops the ten of diamonds accidentally.

 

Does this establish the revoke? Would it make any difference if they had dropped a card of another suit accidentally and then announced that they had revoked on the diamond lead?

[pran]

Declarer calls for a diamond from dummy, RHO and declarer follow suit, and LHO ruffs. LHO then drops the ten of diamonds accidentally.

 

Does this establish the revoke? Would it make any difference if they had dropped a card of another suit accidentally and then announced that they had revoked on the diamond lead?

NO,

 

So long as West's exposure of a card is not done in an act of playing it his exposure does not establish the revoke.

(And the suit of the exposed card is immaterial.)

[barmar]

I think the only time when defender dropping a card accidentally is treated specially is in Law 50B -- it distinguishes between a major and minor penalty card if it's a spot card.

Since this card dropped accidentally is an honor, it becomes a penalty card. It must be played at the first legal opportunity, which means it's the lead to the next trick, and that establishes the revoke. I don't think it matters what suit it is.

A more interesting question would be if they dropped the ♦9 or lower. This becomes a minor penalty card, so it only has to be played before any other diamond spot card, but it doesn't automatically become the lead to the next trick. Since there has been no lead to the next trick yet, exposure of the card should allow him to become aware of the revoke before it's established, so he can correct it according to Law 62. However, if he dropped a spot card of a different suit, that would not necessarily make him aware of the revoke; if he doesn't notice it for some other reason, it will become established.

[chrism]

I disagree with Barry, though I think either interpretation could be argued as consistent with the laws. The penalty card must be played at the next legal opportunity but until it is played the revoke is not established, so that opportunity has not yet arisen, even if the revoker is on lead after apparently winning the trick. First we correct the revoke, then we determine the disposition of the penalty card.

[pran]

I think the only time when defender dropping a card accidentally is treated specially is in Law 50B -- it distinguishes between a major and minor penalty card if it's a spot card.

Since this card dropped accidentally is an honor, it becomes a penalty card. It must be played at the first legal opportunity, which means it's the lead to the next trick, and that establishes the revoke. I don't think it matters what suit it is.

A more interesting question would be if they dropped the ♦9 or lower. This becomes a minor penalty card, so it only has to be played before any other diamond spot card, but it doesn't automatically become the lead to the next trick. Since there has been no lead to the next trick yet, exposure of the card should allow him to become aware of the revoke before it's established, so he can correct it according to Law 62. However, if he dropped a spot card of a different suit, that would not necessarily make him aware of the revoke; if he doesn't notice it for some other reason, it will become established.

The fact that a major penalty card must be played at the first legal possibility does not automatically make it played when it becomes a penalty card with a defender on the lead at that time!

 

("Must play" is future, "play" is now and "played" is past.)

[blackshoe]

I disagree with Barry, though I think either interpretation could be argued as consistent with the laws. The penalty card must be played at the next legal opportunity but until it is played the revoke is not established, so that opportunity has not yet arisen, even if the revoker is on lead after apparently winning the trick. First we correct the revoke, then we determine the disposition of the penalty card.

I agree with this. Both laws are, in effect, "must" laws - a penalty card "must" be played at the first legal opportunity, and a revoke "must" be corrected, but Law 44C says "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." That last sentence clinches it for me. Also, I think if the revoker has more than one diamond, he is allowed to play the ten on the revoke trick*, and then he will have only one penalty card: the trump with which he ruffed. I think he can choose to play another diamond from his hand, if he has one, but then he will have two major penalty cards in front of him.

 

*AFAICS, nothing in the laws prohibits this.

[mycroft]

It must be played at the first legal opportunity, which is after the TD arrives ("after attention has been drawn to an irregularity, the director [is] summonned" and "No player may take any action until [Director rules]") and makes a ruling, which would be the revoke (if it's brought up) and ruling on the penalty card. I don't think you can force the person to play the card before the TD rules; as a result it has not yet been played until the TD so rules; if the revoke is noticed before then, then it's before the lead to the next trick. However, assuming offender has more diamonds, it will have to be the card that corrects the revoke (doesn't it? Does "first legal opportunity" include "substitut[ion of] a legal card"?).

 

Were it the 9, I think the same rule applies, but offender could substitute an honour rather than the 9. Were it a card of another suit, honour or small, it's going to end up being a major penalty card after correction of the revoke, "When one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards." Which I'm sure is going to give exciting options to declarer.

 

I really can not see that the fact that the Laws will turn a dropped card into a required play means that it automaticially becomes a played card, if for no other reason than "A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise" - if the TD designates otherwise (for whatever reason), it's no longer a penalty card, and therefore would not have to be played; how can it be played before the TD gets a chance to designate otherwise (irrespective of whether the TD has any right to designate this particular one otherwise)?

 

Interesting question.

[pran]

I think it is time to sum up the situation because there is apparently much confusion here.

 

1: A Diamond was led from Dummy, RHO and Declarer both followed suit and LHO ruffed.

2: LHO now accidentally dropped a Diamond on the table and attention was drawn to his revoke.

3: The revoke must be corrected and the trump (originally) played by LHO becomes a major penalty card.

4: Tocorrect his revoke LHO may play any Diamond he possesses (if he has more than the one which is now exposed), but he will probably be best off by playing the Diamond he has already exposed.

5: Play will now continue with LHO having one major penalty card (the exposed trump), but in the unlikely event that he (for whatever reason) chose to play a different Diamond to the revoke trick then also the Diamond he accidentally dropped becomes a major penalty card (major regardless of its rank because he already has one penalty card).

 

If no attention was drawn to the revoke in step 3 above (either because the dropped card was in a different suit or because the players were all sleepy or drunk) then the dropped card becomes a penalty card (major if it is of honor rank, otherwise minor), and the revoke becomes established at the moment LHO plays to the next trick.

[Trinidad]

I think it is time to sum up the situation because there is apparently much confusion here.

 

1: A Diamond was led from Dummy, RHO and Declarer both followed suit and LHO ruffed.

2: LHO now accidentally dropped a Diamond on the table and attention was drawn to his revoke.

3: The revoke must be corrected and the trump (originally) played by LHO becomes a major penalty card.

4: Tocorrect his revoke LHO may play any Diamond he possesses (if he has more than the one which is now exposed), but he will probably be best off by playing the Diamond he has already exposed.

5: Play will now continue with LHO having one major penalty card (the exposed trump), but in the unlikely event that he (for whatever reason) chose to play a different Diamond to the revoke trick then also the Diamond he accidentally dropped becomes a major penalty card (major regardless of its rank because he already has one penalty card).

 

If no attention was drawn to the revoke in step 3 above (either because the dropped card was in a different suit or because the players were all sleepy or drunk) then the dropped card becomes a penalty card (major if it is of honor rank, otherwise minor), and the revoke becomes established at the moment LHO plays to the next trick.

Almost correct. The trump is deemed an unestablished revoke and the ♦10 is deemed a major penalty card (it is an exposed honor) as soon as the TD arrives. A major penalty card has to be played at its first legal opportunity. Now, we are going to correct the revoke, according to law 62B:

 

To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card.

1. A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand.

 

So, the defender withdraws the trump and has to play a diamond. Which diamond? Any legal diamond and the only legal diamond is the ♦10.

 

The interesting question comes if the defender would have dropped the ♦2. This is -in principle- a minor penalty card. At what point does the defender have 2 penalty cards (and would the ♦2 turn into a major penalty card)? Is that at the point where he has dropped the card after the revoke? Is that at the point where the revoke is ruled to be a revoke and is corrected?

One could read law 62B so that first the revoke is corrected and then the trump becomes a major penalty card. That would mean that one could correct the revoke with a diamond honor, leaving the minor penalty card of the ♦2 on the table, which then becomes a major penalty card as soon as the trump is ruled a major penalty card. This is how I would read Law 62.

 

One could also say that the revoke must be corrected, which means that the trump is a major penalty card which makes the ♦2 a major penalty card. In that case, the trump has to be substituted by the ♦2. (Not my view, but I guess you could make a case.)

 

Rik

[pran]

Almost correct. The trump is deemed an unestablished revoke and the ♦10 is deemed a major penalty card (it is an exposed honor) as soon as the TD arrives. A major penalty card has to be played at its first legal opportunity. Now, we are going to correct the revoke, according to law 62B:

 

 

 

So, the defender withdraws the trump and has to play a diamond. Which diamond? Any legal diamond and the only legal diamond is the ♦10.

 

The interesting question comes if the defender would have dropped the ♦2. This is -in principle- a minor penalty card. At what point does the defender have 2 penalty cards (and would the ♦2 turn into a major penalty card)? Is that at the point where he has dropped the card after the revoke? Is that at the point where the revoke is ruled to be a revoke and is corrected?

One could read law 62B so that first the revoke is corrected and then the trump becomes a major penalty card. That would mean that one could correct the revoke with a diamond honor, leaving the minor penalty card of the ♦2 on the table, which then becomes a major penalty card as soon as the trump is ruled a major penalty card. This is how I would read Law 62.

 

One could also say that the revoke must be corrected, which means that the trump is a major penalty card which makes the ♦2 a major penalty card. In that case, the trump has to be substituted by the ♦2. (Not my view, but I guess you could make a case.)

 

Rik

 

I believe you overlook the full consequences of

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

So until a revoke has become established it must be corrected when noticed (as prescribed in Law 62) before any other action is taken.

 

(Neither the trump nor the Diamond are deemed penalty cards until after the revoke has been corrected!)

[blackshoe]

Also, whether the diamond would be deemed a penalty card is at TD discretion. "…unless the Director designates otherwise" in Law 50.

[Trinidad]

I believe you overlook the full consequences of

 

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

So until a revoke has become established it must be corrected when noticed (as prescribed in Law 62) before any other action is taken.

 

(Neither the trump nor the Diamond are deemed penalty cards until after the revoke has been corrected!)

Please read Law 44C carefully... Does it say anything... at all ... about how and when to rectify revokes?

 

Law 44C has nothing to do with this discussion. Law 44C has already been broken. And meanwhile we also have an exposed card. We now deal with how to fix these two problems. The fact that the obligation of a player to follow suit takes precedence over all other requirements [to the player] has nothing whatsoever to do with how the infraction is fixed.

 

The statement:

"My roof has the obligation to stop rain water from falling through. This takes precedence over all other requirements (stopping sun light, creating a roof garden, looking nice, ...)."

does not tell in any way what we will do when the roof starts to leak.

 

In a similar way Law 44C only defines the obligation to follow suit, and says nothing whatsoever about what we will do when a player doesn't follow suit, let alone in what chronological order any infractions need to be dealt with.

 

You can criticize the Laws for being unclear here and there. But if there is one thing that is 100% clear throughout the Law book is that the definitions of proper procedure are strictly separated from the Laws on how to fix deviations from proper procedure. There cannot be a grain of doubt that Law 44C only defines proper procedure and says nothing about what to do when there is a violation.

 

Rik

[barmar]

I agree with all the responses, my original analysis was wrong.

[barmar]

Also, whether the diamond would be deemed a penalty card is at TD discretion. "…unless the Director designates otherwise" in Law 50.

It's not really his discretion, there has to be a particular reason (per Laws 49 or 23) why he would determine otherwise. He can't arbitrarily decide that an exposed card is not a penalty card.

[blackshoe]

It's not really his discretion, there has to be a particular reason (per Laws 49 or 23) why he would determine otherwise. He can't arbitrarily decide that an exposed card is not a penalty card.

True. But the question how or whether to apply those laws is a matter for the TD's judgement, which is what I intended by my statement.

[blackshoe]

Sven, let's keep the personal stuff out of here.

[blackshoe]

Law 44C has nothing to do with this discussion.

I disagree. Obviously, since I'm the one who introduced it to this discussion. Law 44C says that it takes precedence over all other laws in the book. Law 49 would make the ♦10 a major penalty card, but because of Law 44C, the obligation to correct the revoke (Law 62A) takes precedence over making the ♦10 a MPC. Law 62B says "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." Now either the player plays the ♦10, or he plays some other diamond from his hand, assuming all his diamonds are legal cards. If the ♦10 is a MPC, then the only legal card is the ♦10. But the law is unclear on this point, as it is unclear in many cases where multiple laws must be applied. It is also true, btw, that the revoker would be well advised to play the ♦10 (assuming he cannot otherwise win the trick) because if he does play a different diamond here, both the ♦10 and the trump become MPCs.

 

The bottom line is that it may be simplest to rule that the player has revoked (Law 61), that the revoke has not been established (Law 63A), and that therefor the revoke must be corrected (Law 62A). In correcting a revoke, the only legal card that can be played is the ♦10, because it is a major penalty card (Law 49) and therefor must be played at the first legal opportunity (Law 50). But it is not entirely clear to me that other diamonds in the offender's hand are not "legal cards" in applying Law 62A.

[pran]

I disagree. Obviously, since I'm the one who introduced it to this discussion. Law 44C says that it takes precedence over all other laws in the book. Law 49 would make the ♦10 a major penalty card, but because of Law 44C, the obligation to correct the revoke (Law 62A) takes precedence over making the ♦10 a MPC. Law 62B says "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." Now either the player plays the ♦10, or he plays some other diamond from his hand, assuming all his diamonds are legal cards. If the ♦10 is a MPC, then the only legal card is the ♦10. But the law is unclear on this point, as it is unclear in many cases where multiple laws must be applied. It is also true, btw, that the revoker would be well advised to play the ♦10 (assuming he cannot otherwise win the trick) because if he does play a different diamond here, both the ♦10 and the trump become MPCs.

 

The bottom line is that it may be simplest to rule that the player has revoked (Law 61), that the revoke has not been established (Law 63A), and that therefor the revoke must be corrected (Law 62A). In correcting a revoke, the only legal card that can be played is the ♦10, because it is a major penalty card (Law 49) and therefor must be played at the first legal opportunity (Law 50). But it is not entirely clear to me that other diamonds in the offender's hand are not "legal cards" in applying Law 62A.

That this question can be very important is best shown with an example:

 

A Diamond is led from Dummy, RHO and Declarer follows suit and LHO "wins" the trick with a trump.

 

LHO then accidentally drops a Diamond of rank lower than the highest Diamond so far played to the trick (by Declarer).

 

When TD sort things out it appears that LHO also has a Diamond of higher rank sufficient to win the trick.

 

At this time we are strictly within Law 62B, and no card has so far been declared penalty card. The consequence can only be that offender may substitute his higher Diamond to the revoke trick if he wants to. Then both his trump and the small Diamond eventually become major penalty cards and Declarer decides which of them shall be led to the next trick.

 

If offender instead decides to just substitute his small Diamond to the revoke trick and let Declarer win it then he is left with only his trump being a major penalty card.

[Trinidad]

I disagree. Obviously, since I'm the one who introduced it to this discussion. Law 44C says that it takes precedence over all other laws in the book.

 

Law 44C doesn't say that Law 44C takes precedence over all other laws in the book. That is a misunderstanding. It says:

 

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

So, Law 44C does not take precedence over all other laws, the obligation to a player to follow suit takes precedence over all else we require of the player.

 

That is something very different.

 

Interesting situations would occur if law 44C would really take precedence over all other laws (instead of the player's obligation to follow suit taking precedent over all other requirements): It would mean that established revokes need to be corrected. 5 cards need to be taken back so a player can meet his obligation to follow suit at trick 3. We all know that this is not the case. Once Law 44C has been broken, Laws 61-64 deal with how to fix this problem. That is because Law 44C does not take precedence over all other Laws...

 

 

Of course, when we (the TDs) are dealing with the two infractions, we are going to make sure that the player will fulfill his obligation to follow suit (if at all possible). We will see that it is possible to do that in this case.

 

We are now in a situation where a player has already broken law 44C and has dropped the ♦10 on the table. Now we need to fix those two infractions. Before the player gets to do anything, we are going to instruct him what to do.

 

For the revoke we have Laws 61-64. They make sure that the player will obey Law 44C "retroactively", as good as possible. In this case, since the revoke is not established, that means he will have to play a diamond to the previous trick. (Note the future tense.) And then we will have corrected the situation so that Law 44C is satisfied. So we tell the player: "Law 62 says that you will have to play a diamond to the revoke trick. But we are not done yet."

 

So far, so good. We have taken care of the player's requirement to follow suit. But - before we could correct the revoke - the player has committed another infraction that we also have to deal with: He had dropped the ♦10 on the table. This is a major penalty card and must be played at the first legal opportunity.

 

So, we tell the player: "At the first legal opportunity, you will have to play the ♦10."

This first legal opportunity is at the point where he needs to correct the revoke. So, he cannot just play any diamond to the revoke trick. It must be the ♦10.

 

Of course, when we are ruling on the major penalty card, we should make sure that the player can follow the obligation in Law 44C. And fortunately (and unsurprising to me) he can: The major penalty card that he has to play means that he is following suit, so there is no problem with Law 44C when we rule that he needs to play the ♦10 to the revoke trick. This is why this was the first legal opportunity to play the ♦10.

 

Suppose he had dropped the ♥10 instead of the ♦10. Then the ♥10 would also have been a major penalty card, and would have to be played at the first legal opportunity. Since the revoke trick needed a diamond, it would (of course) not be legal to substitute the trump for the ♥10. That would violate Law 44C, which is why penalty cards need to be played at the first legal opportunity and not at any opportunity. In that case, the player will end up with 2 major penalty cards (and this would also have been the case if he dropped the ♥2.)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

At this time we are strictly within Law 62B, and no card has so far been declared penalty card. The consequence can only be that offender may substitute his higher Diamond to the revoke trick if he wants to.

Sven,

 

When the TD comes to the table, the play is stopped. No player is doing anything, until all infractions are dealt with by the TD. So by the time the offender can substitute anything we need to have dealt with the penalty card.

 

We are not going to deal with one infraction, resume play, to then stop play again and deal with the other infraction. That would be a serious TD error.

 

So first we instruct the players what to do about all the infractions and then we let play proceed. This means that the right order of things is:

 

• We instruct the players to put their cards down and not to touch them unless we say so.
  
• We deal with the revoke, instructing the player to play a diamond (in principle any diamond) when he is allowed to start playing again.
  
• We deal with the penalty card, instructing the player to play the ♦10 at his first legal opportunity.
  
• Only when the players have understood all these instructions (and not earlier) we will allow them to pick up their cards and let play proceed.
  

The player will have to play the ♦10 to the revoke trick.

 

Rik

[pran]

Sven,

 

When the TD comes to the table, the play is stopped. No player is doing anything, until all infractions are dealt with by the TD. So by the time the offender can substitute anything we need to have dealt with the penalty card.

 

We are not going to deal with one infraction, resume play, to then stop play again and deal with the other infraction. That would be a serious TD error.

 

So first we instruct the players what to do about all the infractions and then we let play proceed. This means that the right order of things is:

 

• We instruct the players to put their cards down and not to touch them unless we say so.
  
• We deal with the revoke, instructing the player to play a diamond (in principle any diamond) when he is allowed to start playing again.
  
• We deal with the penalty card, instructing the player to play the ♦10 at his first legal opportunity.
  
• Only when the players have understood all these instructions (and not earlier) we will allow them to pick up their cards and let play proceed.
  

The player will have to play the ♦10 to the revoke trick.

 

Rik

 

The error in your reasoning is that if the offender selects the ♦10 as the card with which he will correct his revoke then this card is never (during the situation) deemed a penalty card!

 

But let me add that the consequences of having two rather than just one major penalty card can hardly ever benefit the offender, so I have the feeling that this discussion is futile.

[Trinidad]

The error in your reasoning is that if the offender selects the ♦10 as the card with which he will correct his revoke then this card is never (during the situation) deemed a penalty card!

You don't get it. The defender does not get to select anything at all (not the ♦10, not the ♦A, nor what he will have for breakfast the next morning) until the TD is finished with all his instructions dealing with all infractions (i.e. about the revoke and the exposed ♦10) and tells the players that play will proceed (starting with the "selection" of a card to correct the revoke).

 

So first the TDs deals with all infractions, which (among others) means that he deems the ♦10 a major penalty card. Only then the defender gets to "select" a card to correct the revoke. So, the ♦10 will always be deemed a major penalty card. It will be a very short living major penalty card since it will have to be played immediately (hence the quotation marks around select) but that is the case for many major penalty cards.

 

But let me add that the consequences of having two rather than just one major penalty card can hardly ever benefit the offender, so I have the feeling that this discussion is futile.

There are two reasons why this discussion is not as futile as you think.

1) It may actually matter what diamond is played. Suppose that, at the point of the revoke, the jack was the highest card in the trick and that the defender held the ♦QT(x). It makes a difference whether he must dump the ten under the jack (like I say) or is allowed to play the queen (like you say) and win the trick. It is not hard to come up with other scenarios where it makes a difference whether the 10 must be played or a different diamond may be chosen.

 

2) Apart from this case, there is a bigger principle: The TD should always deal with all infractions that are there when he comes to the table and only when all infractions are dealt with can players use their options and will he let play continue. This is an important principle that TDs should know. A TD should never give a player an option and then continue with his ruling(s). Justifying this on the (misguided) idea that one Law would take precedence over other Laws is wrong. Getting that clear is not futile.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Rik, you make a good argument for the idea that other diamonds in the player's hand are not legal cards in the sense that phrase is used in Law 62B, although it took me a while to figure that out. Nice wall of text there. :P Also, yeah, I misquoted Law 44C. Sloppy of me. But it doesn't change the point I was trying to make, which is that you can't require the player to play his MPC before correcting his revoke. That would, of course, establish the revoke, but the requirement to follow suit is paramount, so the revoke must be corrected first.

 

Back to the original scenario: The TD will ask the players to face the trick in question, if it's not still faced. He will then instruct the offender that the trump on that trick is removed from the trick and becomes a major penalty card, which must be played at the first legal opportunity. The ♦10 is placed in the trick, and the trick is quitted. Now who won the trick? We don't know from the OP, but it doesn't matter, as there's no MPC on the table.

[axman]

You don't get it. The defender does not get to select anything at all (not the ♦10, not the ♦A, nor what he will have for breakfast the next morning) until the TD is finished with all his instructions dealing with all infractions (i.e. about the revoke and the exposed ♦10) and tells the players that play will proceed (starting with the "selection" of a card to correct the revoke).

 

So first the TDs deals with all infractions, which (among others) means that he deems the ♦10 a major penalty card. Only then the defender gets to "select" a card to correct the revoke. So, the ♦10 will always be deemed a major penalty card. It will be a very short living major penalty card since it will have to be played immediately (hence the quotation marks around select) but that is the case for many major penalty cards.

 

 

There are two reasons why this discussion is not as futile as you think.

1) It may actually matter what diamond is played. Suppose that, at the point of the revoke, the jack was the highest card in the trick and that the defender held the ♦QT(x). It makes a difference whether he must dump the ten under the jack (like I say) or is allowed to play the queen (like you say) and win the trick. It is not hard to come up with other scenarios where it makes a difference whether the 10 must be played or a different diamond may be chosen.

 

2) Apart from this case, there is a bigger principle: The TD should always deal with all infractions that are there when he comes to the table and only when all infractions are dealt with can players use their options and will he let play continue. This is an important principle that TDs should know. A TD should never give a player an option and then continue with his ruling(s). Justifying this on the (misguided) idea that one Law would take precedence over other Laws is wrong. Getting that clear is not futile.

 

Rik

 

the non trivial issue is the status of the DT.

 

Supposedly, it was the player's turn to act [he had just won the previous trick] and he did so. It is asserted that the action was a dropped** card, the DT. This is what the relevant law says:

 

45C1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).

 

the DT rests faced on the table- it is being held by the table. L45C1a states that it must be played to this trick. And under this condition the revoke on the previous trick is established.

 

 

It is not particularly clear whether a card exposed at one's turn to play, whether intentional or by accident, becomes a PC by that condition alone. However, L45C1a is clear it must be played to the current trick even if subject to some penalty.

 

** for the facts given, apparently the accidental nature is irrelevant wrt requiring the card be played to the current trick

[gordontd]

the DT rests faced on the table- it is being held by the table.

I think "nonsense" is the polite way of expressing what I want to reply to this.