Claim with a defective trick

[VixTD]

A recent graduate of a club TD course asked about a problem that arose in his club. Declarer in 3NT had followed at trick six to LHO's lead of a small club with the king from dummy, winning the trick, and then called for the queen, winning the following trick. The problem was that he hadn't played to trick six from his own hand, so when he later claimed the last three tricks, it was found that everyone else had only two cards left.

 

Had this been discovered before the claim, declarer could have chosen one of his last three cards to contribute to the defective trick under law 67B (assuming all would be legal plays to that trick). As it was discovered after the claim had taken place, can offender still choose, or does the last card that he would have played (according to the claim statement) become the one played to the defective trick? What if offender's claim statement is not clear on the matter? I presume the TD rules as if the least advantageous card is contributed.

 

I doubt it would make any difference in this case, but it could if declarer claimed with e.g. the two last trumps and a loser, which he concedes.

[weejonnie]

I don't think that the TD (or opponents) has the right to insist that the least favourable card is selected. Law 67B just requires the declarer to show one card and then add it to the trick (with a revoke of course)

 

1. When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); etc.

 

Forthwith means : (especially in official use) immediately; without delay.

 

So this must be done before the Director can deal with the claim. Of course the requirement may very well affect the consequences of the claim statement - in which case the TD will resolve and doubtful points against the claimer (Law 70)

 

In the case suggested (two trumps + a loser) then the loser will be added to the defective trick (unless declarer is an idiot!), one trump trick will be allocated to the defence as per law 67 calling on law 64A2 (more, in the form of an adjusted score, if Law 64C comes into play of course - and I THINK it does since the revoke is established not only by playing to the next trick after the defective one but also making a claim) and the claimer is protected from conceding any more tricks as you can't concede a trick that can't be lost by any play of the cards. (Law 71) - I assume the Director has to apply this law once he becomes aware of the situation.

[barmar]

In the case suggested (two trumps + a loser) then the loser will be added to the defective trick

What trumps? The contract in the OP is 3NT.

[blackshoe]

it is not in evidence that there was a revoke, either.

[pran]

it is not in evidence that there was a revoke, either.

I assume that the defective trick is not the one currently in progress at the time of the claim, so then:

When the Director determines that there has been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards); both sides having played to the next trick, he proceeds as follows:

1. When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if

(a) the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick; he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2.

(b) the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick; he chooses any card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2.

(my emphasis in red)

So yes, there was indeed a revoke.

 

(PS.: The fact that there is a claim is irrelevant for the ruling)

[axman]

A recent graduate of a club TD course asked about a problem that arose in his club. Declarer in 3NT had followed at trick six to LHO's lead of a small club with the king from dummy, winning the trick, and then called for the queen, winning the following trick. The problem was that he hadn't played to trick six from his own hand, so when he later claimed the last three tricks, it was found that everyone else had only two cards left.

 

Had this been discovered before the claim, declarer could have chosen one of his last three cards to contribute to the defective trick under law 67B (assuming all would be legal plays to that trick). As it was discovered after the claim had taken place, can offender still choose, or does the last card that he would have played (according to the claim statement) become the one played to the defective trick? What if offender's claim statement is not clear on the matter? I presume the TD rules as if the least advantageous card is contributed.

 

I doubt it would make any difference in this case, but it could if declarer claimed with e.g. the two last trumps and a loser, which he concedes.

The effect of a claim is to fix the play of the remaining cards. In this case the claim occurred prior to identifying the presence of a defective trick and thus must be adjudicated first in order to determine the leftover card. As such, the leftover card from the (adjudicated) claim is contributed to the defective trick in accordance with L67.

[pran]

The effect of a claim is to fix the play of the remaining cards. In this case the claim occurred prior to identifying the presence of a defective trick and thus must be adjudicated first in order to determine the leftover card. As such, the leftover card from the (adjudicated) claim is contributed to the defective trick in accordance with L67.

The only important condition is that both sides have played to the trick following the trick that eventually is found to be defective.

Even a circumstance that one player (alone) still holds a card after all 13 tricks have been played to completion doesn't change the fact that the Director shall apply Law 67 when that "surplus" card could belong to a trick earlier than trick 13.

[steve2005]

I assume that the defective trick is not the one currently in progress at the time of the claim, so then:

(my emphasis in red)

So yes, there was indeed a revoke.

 

(PS.: The fact that there is a claim is irrelevant for the ruling)

Interesting. I've seen people not play to a trick and it later revealed. But have never had it ruled a revoke.

[blackshoe]

So yes, there was indeed a revoke.

 

(PS.: The fact that there is a claim is irrelevant for the ruling)

Law 67B says one trick is transferred. So be it. But "deemed to have revoked" is not "did revoke", whatever rectification the law requires.

 

I do agree that the claim is irrelevant to this ruling. However, the director still has to rule on the validity of the claim.

[pran]

Law 67B says one trick is transferred. So be it. But "deemed to have revoked" is not "did revoke", whatever rectification the law requires.

 

I do agree that the claim is irrelevant to this ruling. However, the director still has to rule on the validity of the claim.

"Deemed to have revoked" to me means that the Director rules "the player did (indeed) revoke".

 

More specifically

Definition of Revoke

Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

(Law 67B does not say that one trick is transferred [unconditionally], it explicitly refers to Law 64A2 for such transfer)

[pran]

Interesting. I've seen people not play to a trick and it later revealed. But have never had it ruled a revoke.

Ignorance of the Laws is the most important problem with (acting) Tournament Directors.

[barmar]

"Deemed to have revoked" to me means that the Director rules "the player did (indeed) revoke".

He might not actually have revoked, but "deem" means that for all intents and purposes we treat it as if he had. So the distinction between "deem" and "did" is irrelevant for purposes of applying the Laws.

[Vampyr]

He might not actually have revoked, but "deem" means that for all intents and purposes we treat it as if he had. So the distinction between "deem" and "did" is irrelevant for purposes of applying the Laws.

 

How can this be? If declarer can put a card into the trick that was the suit led, then he will not have revoked.

[pran]

He might not actually have revoked, but "deem" means that for all intents and purposes we treat it as if he had. So the distinction between "deem" and "did" is irrelevant for purposes of applying the Laws.

How can this be? If declarer can put a card into the trick that was the suit led, then he will not have revoked.

Read Law 61 again (and make sure you fully understand it)!

 

The player failed to play his card to the trick where he was required by law to play it. That is an exact match to the definition of a revoke.

 

The fact that he at a later time put his card into the trick in question does not alter his original action (or lacking action) from being a revoke.

 

"deem" simply emphasizes the fact that the Director shall so rule.

[axman]

Read Law 61 again (and make sure you fully understand it)!

 

The player failed to play his card to the trick where he was required by law to play it. That is an exact match to the definition of a revoke.

 

The fact that he at a later time put his card into the trick in question does not alter his original action (or lacking action) from being a revoke.

 

"deem" simply emphasizes the fact that the Director shall so rule.

 

It probably is not germane, but when there is a left over card at the end of play because it was not contributed to one of the tricks, for the trick missing a card (at the time the trick was created) the player’s hand either contained a card that would follow suit or did not. And, if it did not have a card that would follow suit at the time- had he played to the trick it would not have been a revoke. Then, under what justification (other than a decrepit law) should he be subject to paying a revoke penalty when the defective trick is corrected?

[blackshoe]

It probably is not germane, but when there is a left over card at the end of play because it was not contributed to one of the tricks, for the trick missing a card (at the time the trick was created) the player’s hand either contained a card that would follow suit or did not. And, if it did not have a card that would follow suit at the time- had he played to the trick it would not have been a revoke. Then, under what justification (other than a decrepit law) should he be subject to paying a revoke penalty when the defective trick is corrected?

We don't need any other justification than the law. Which I would not call "decrepit" btw, though as far as I know it's been around for a while.

[pran]

It probably is not germane, but when there is a left over card at the end of play because it was not contributed to one of the tricks, for the trick missing a card (at the time the trick was created) the player’s hand either contained a card that would follow suit or did not. And, if it did not have a card that would follow suit at the time- had he played to the trick it would not have been a revoke. Then, under what justification (other than a decrepit law) should he be subject to paying a revoke penalty when the defective trick is corrected?

There is a very simple (and good) reason why Laws 61 and 67 prescribes this rectification i.e. ruling that the player has revoked with all its consequences:

 

He has played a significant part of the board with one extra card in his hand. The effect of this could for instance be that he has avoided being squeezed or end-played. In general he may have gained a trick becaujse of his irregularity.

 

Law 61 doesn't bother about examining such possibilities but simply states that he has revoked - period.

[barmar]

The player failed to play his card to the trick where he was required by law to play it. That is an exact match to the definition of a revoke.

The definition of a revoke is either a failure to follow suit when able, or a failure to play a required card (e.g. a penalty card, or a specific suit when declarer exercises the option to require a suit lead). Although it's always required to play some card in each trick, I believe this clause of the law refers to a specific card/suit, not just any card.

 

This is why the Law about defective tricks uses the word "deemed" -- whether or not the offender actually revoked according to Law 61, we act as if he had.

[pran]

The definition of a revoke is either a failure to follow suit when able, or a failure to play a required card (e.g. a penalty card, or a specific suit when declarer exercises the option to require a suit lead). Although it's always required to play some card in each trick, I believe this clause of the law refers to a specific card/suit, not just any card.

 

This is why the Law about defective tricks uses the word "deemed" -- whether or not the offender actually revoked according to Law 61, we act as if he had.

This distinction is immaterial, the result is the same whichever way you look at the situation.

 

But Each player is required by Law (44) to play a card at his turn to play, and law 61 doesn't limit "card or suit required by law" to rectification situations only.

 

So the use of the word "deemed" in Law 67 does IMHO not imply that the failure to play a card to a trick was not a revoke.

I challenge those who argue that it does to come up with an alternative text for the situation where it indeed is a revoke? Without any such alternative text I argue that the word "deem" means just that.

 

(Not that it makes any real difference.)

[blackshoe]

This distinction is immaterial…

You should have stopped right there B-).

[pran]

You should have stopped right there B-).

Just for curiosity I looked up the Norwegian translation and found (word for word translation back to English - beginning with "deems"-):

"It is ruled that the player has revoked in the defective trick".

[blackshoe]

Hm. Translation is hard? :unsure:

[axman]

This distinction is immaterial, the result is the same whichever way you look at the situation.

 

But Each player is required by Law (44) to play a card at his turn to play, and law 61 doesn't limit "card or suit required by law" to rectification situations only.

 

So the use of the word "deemed" in Law 67 does IMHO not imply that the failure to play a card to a trick was not a revoke.

I challenge those who argue that it does to come up with an alternative text for the situation where it indeed is a revoke? Without any such alternative text I argue that the word "deem" means just that.

 

(Not that it makes any real difference.)

I am not inclined to figure out the antecedents- but it does appear that there are self contradictions (above).

[barmar]

This distinction is immaterial, the result is the same whichever way you look at the situation.

 

But Each player is required by Law (44) to play a card at his turn to play, and law 61 doesn't limit "card or suit required by law" to rectification situations only.

So you're saying that "a card or suit required by law" in the revoke definition refers to the normal play of cards, not something more specific like penalty cards? This phrase is used after "failure to lead or play" -- so does that mean if it's your lead, but you just sit there like a lump, you're revoking?

 

I also just reread it and the part about the opponent specifying a suit is a separate case: "or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity".

 

If "required by law" referred to normal play, it seems like all the other verbiage would be totally redundant. After all, following suit is required by law, so failure to do so would constitute failing to play a suit required by law.

[pran]

So you're saying that "a card or suit required by law" in the revoke definition refers to the normal play of cards, not something more specific like penalty cards? This phrase is used after "failure to lead or play" -- so does that mean if it's your lead, but you just sit there like a lump, you're revoking?

 

I also just reread it and the part about the opponent specifying a suit is a separate case: "or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity".

 

If "required by law" referred to normal play, it seems like all the other verbiage would be totally redundant. After all, following suit is required by law, so failure to do so would constitute failing to play a suit required by law.

Of course.

"failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law" includes the normal play of cards "as required by Law 44".

 

And there are many examples of redundancy in the laws (more or less overlapping) not that they should cause any difficulty.