Revoke from dummy with card hidden

[timjand]

At a club, declarer ruffs from dummy. Several tricks later, it turns out that a card in dummy is hidden behind another card, and is of the suit that was ruffed.

 

All four players should have seen that there were only 12 cards in dummy. However the revoke law says that you cannot revoke if a card of that suit is "faced" and if the card is hidden, it is not really faced. Should this be treated as "missing card" (law 14B) which states that "failure to have played it may constitute a revoke"?

 

Tim

[Coelacanth]

At a club, declarer ruffs from dummy. Several tricks later, it turns out that a card in dummy is hidden behind another card, and is of the suit that was ruffed.

 

All four players should have seen that there were only 12 cards in dummy. However the revoke law says that you cannot revoke if a card of that suit is "faced" and if the card is hidden, it is not really faced. Should this be treated as "missing card" (law 14B) which states that "failure to have played it may constitute a revoke"?

 

Tim

This is an established revoke; no need to involve L14.

 

L64B3 directs that there is no rectification for this revoke. However, L64C directs the TD to assign an adjusted score if the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated.

[timjand]

This is an established revoke; no need to involve L14.

 

L64B3 directs that there is no rectification for this revoke. However, L64C directs the TD to assign an adjusted score if the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated.

 

64B3 refers to "playing any card faced on the table". So a hidden card in dummy (ie one that is completely covered by other cards) is considered faced? What if it had in fact been on the floor rather than hidden on the table?

 

Update: ah it also says, "belonging to a hand faced on the table" so that is the key statement here I guess?

 

Tim

[timjand]

Actually there is another twist here. Would you invoke 64C (Director responsible for equity) since you can argue that the defenders were also at fault, for not spotting the insufficient number of cards on the table?

 

Tim

[mycroft]

The law has been explained above and it's correct in all matters. Revoke has occurred; however, there is no explicit penalty for such an established revoke; however, equity is restored with benefit of the doubt to the non-revoking side.

 

In addition, if failure to face the dummy correctly (showing all 13 cards) has led to misdefence, an adjusted score may be assigned rectifying that damage.

 

If the card did not exist on the table (rather than being hidden), then it would indeed be a Law 14 case. Once the card is found, if it turns out it should have been played to a trick, it will be treated as if it were a revoke. Of course, that revoke, for "failing to play ... a card in dummy" also has no fixed penalty, only equity; so you're no different than before (save potentially losing a trick that the card could take after being found).

 

It is a good idea if defenders ensure that they're playing against a full dummy (it certainly helps your defence if you can spot 12-card hands, I would think!); but it's not their responsibility.

 

But if you feel damaged because "my revoke cost tricks, his was just 'equity' ", then, "that's the way the Law reads. Sorry."

[barmar]

64B3 refers to "playing any card faced on the table". So a hidden card in dummy (ie one that is completely covered by other cards) is considered faced? What if it had in fact been on the floor rather than hidden on the table?

 

Update: ah it also says, "belonging to a hand faced on the table" so that is the key statement here I guess?

Right. I think "any card faced on the table" refers to penalty cards (failure to play a penalty card when required is addressed in Law 52), while "belonging to a hand faced on the table" refers to dummy.

[RMB1]

since you can argue that the defenders were also at fault, for not spotting the insufficient number of cards on the table?

 

In the EBU (not sure about other jurisdictions) the defenders are not (at all) responsible for ensuring that dummy has displayed 13 cards.

[timjand]

Thanks all for your contributions.

 

Tim

[blackshoe]

In the EBU (not sure about other jurisdictions) the defenders are not (at all) responsible for ensuring that dummy has displayed 13 cards.

I would think that's a matter of law rather than regulation (unless there's an explicit regulation assigning responsibility for dummy to defenders, which I would think is probably illegal) and that the law is the same everywhere.

[pran]

I would think that's a matter of law rather than regulation (unless there's an explicit regulation assigning responsibility for dummy to defenders, which I would think is probably illegal) and that the law is the same everywhere.

I don't know of any law that explicitly places responsibility on defenders to discover Dummy having faced an incorrect number of cards.

 

However, we do have

[As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:]

paying insufficient attention to the game.

which the Director in case might consider relevant.

[axman]

I would think that's a matter of law rather than regulation (unless there's an explicit regulation assigning responsibility for dummy to defenders, which I would think is probably illegal) and that the law is the same everywhere.

 

I do not think that a regulation requiring defenders to draw attention to a(n apparently) deficient dummy is in conflict with law. However, such a regulation is repugnant and I will afford it no mind.

[Zelandakh]

However, we do have (L72B1) which the Director in case might consider relevant.

On the other side we have L23 (Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity), which could be seen to apply in some cases.