Claim with a defective trick

[barmar]

And what is "when able" supposed to mean? Under what situation would you not be able to play a card? There are just so many extra words there that I have to think they were trying to say something more specific. One redundancy can be ignored, but it's something like four.

[pran]

And what is "when able" supposed to mean? Under what situation would you not be able to play a card? There are just so many extra words there that I have to think they were trying to say something more specific. One redundancy can be ignored, but it's something like four.

Obviously I am not able to play a card in a particular suit unless I have a card in that suit available. And failure to play such a card (required by law) when able is a clear revoke regardless of the circumstances.

[quote name='Law 44'

[...]

C. Requirement to Follow Suit

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

D. Inability to Follow Suit

If unable to follow suit, a player may play any card (unless he is subject to restriction after an irregularity committed by his side).

[barmar]

Obviously I am not able to play a card in a particular suit unless I have a card in that suit available. And failure to play such a card (required by law) when able is a clear revoke regardless of the circumstances.

"that suit" -- so now you're back to agreeing with me that it's talking about the specific card or suit required in certain circumstances (such as declarer exercising a require/prohibit option), not just any legal card.

 

By your logic, the definition of revoke could be reduced to just "Playing an illegal card", perhaps followed by "such as ..." and a list of the common failures (not following suit when able, not playing a PC when required, not obeying a require/prohibit option, etc.).

[pran]

"that suit" -- so now you're back to agreeing with me that it's talking about the specific card or suit required in certain circumstances (such as declarer exercising a require/prohibit option), not just any legal card.

 

By your logic, the definition of revoke could be reduced to just "Playing an illegal card", perhaps followed by "such as ..." and a list of the common failures (not following suit when able, not playing a PC when required, not obeying a require/prohibit option, etc.).

And your point is ???

 

Law 61A is pretty clear to me as it is.

In fact I expect it to be pretty clear to any qualified Director reading it once they realize that revoke is more than just not following suit.

(Those who don't want to understand are of course a different kind of people.)

[barmar]

And your point is ???

Maybe it doesn't really make a difference. If the unplayed card that caused the defective trick fits the definition of a revoke by itself, then the law that tells us to deem it a revoke is also redundant (you don't need to deem something that's self-evident), but so what? Whichever law we use to determine that it's a revoke, we end up in the revoke laws and the right thing happens.

[weejonnie]

Maybe it doesn't really make a difference. If the unplayed card that caused the defective trick fits the definition of a revoke by itself, then the law that tells us to deem it a revoke is also redundant (you don't need to deem something that's self-evident), but so what? Whichever law we use to determine that it's a revoke, we end up in the revoke laws and the right thing happens.

Well the law may be redundant, but it is still a very useful reminder that it applies in this situation.

[barmar]

Well the law may be redundant, but it is still a very useful reminder that it applies in this situation.

I don't mind the reminder. But they could have said something like "Since the defective trick constitutes a revoke, Law <whatever> applies." This could even be in a footnote. The use of the word "deem" implies that it is not inherently a revoke, but we must treat it as one.