Declarer plays two cards at once

[661_Pete]

A fairly unusual one, I think. I was defending, the board was being played out smoothly we thought, until dummy suddenly noticed that her partner only had four cards left in her hand, whereas everyone else had five...

 

After we'd had a look under the table, a quick search of the played tricks revealed that she'd fallen foul of the 'sticky card' syndrome, playing two at once much earlier on in the play. We were all quite perplexed as to what to do about this: simply restoring the misplayed card to her hand would have entailed multiple revokes and added to the complexity. So we called the TD. He was puzzled too, and after a long perusal of the Law book and a quick consultation with other qualified TDs in the room, he ruled that we could not finish the hand. He awarded an "average minus two" - whatever that means - against the offender, meaning we were scored 60% on the board against opponents' 40%. I think that was fair enough.

 

Anyone else had similar experience?

[axman]

A fairly unusual one, I think. I was defending, the board was being played out smoothly we thought, until dummy suddenly noticed that her partner only had four cards left in her hand, whereas everyone else had five...

 

After we'd had a look under the table, a quick search of the played tricks revealed that she'd fallen foul of the 'sticky card' syndrome, playing two at once much earlier on in the play. We were all quite perplexed as to what to do about this: simply restoring the misplayed card to her hand would have entailed multiple revokes and added to the complexity. So we called the TD. He was puzzled too, and after a long perusal of the Law book and a quick consultation with other qualified TDs in the room, he ruled that we could not finish the hand. He awarded an "average minus two" - whatever that means - against the offender, meaning we were scored 60% on the board against opponents' 40%. I think that was fair enough.

 

Anyone else had similar experience?

Might read through L67.

[pescetom]

I sympathise with TD, Law 67B2 doesn't seem adequate to handle this situation.

 

But I would take some convincing that you deserved 60% (no blame) rather than 50% (partly to blame) here. For starters, I don't think you should have searched the played tricks before calling the TD. Before you did do it, were declarer's played cards layed out in sequence and correctly oriented? Did you see and count 8 rather than 9?

[VixTD]

That's not the correct ruling. There is a law that specifically covers this situation:

 

Law 67B2: When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change. A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender’s hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

[FelicityR]

Yes. But for the life of me I can't remember how the TD scored the board. My opponent as declarer, a lady older than myself, had inadvertently dropped a card in her lap during play. We got to the final trick, and there was an air of slight embarrassment all round as she saw both my partner and I (and dummy) had a card left and she had none.

 

She then looked down, saw the card, picked it up and placed it on the table saying 'Oh dear' or words to that effect. Like your scenario, there were multiple revokes, and the lady just kept apologising. My partner said the TD needs to be called, and the TD looked at the cards played and said he couldn't make a decision there and then because he'd never come across this before. By which time we were ready to move table.

[steve2005]

You have a revoke.

[661_Pete]

I sympathise with TD, Law 67B2 doesn't seem adequate to handle this situation.

 

But I would take some convincing that you deserved 60% (no blame) rather than 50% (partly to blame) here. For starters, I don't think you should have searched the played tricks before calling the TD. Before you did do it, were declarer's played cards layed out in sequence and correctly oriented? Did you see and count 8 rather than 9?

The main problem was, several tricks had been played subsequent to the infraction, and this made it difficult to restore the play to what should have happened. As far as I can recall, I checked the number of my own played cards, and that they were correctly oriented (i.e. same way as my partner's) but I did not expose them - I left that to the TD. Declarer checked her own cards and discovered the error. She wanted to restore the erroneous card to her hand, but we insisted on calling the TD.

[barmar]

For starters, I don't think you should have searched the played tricks before calling the TD.

Not calling the TD could get a PP, but it shouldn't affect the assignment of blame for the problem.

Before you did do it, were declarer's played cards layed out in sequence and correctly oriented? Did you see and count 8 rather than 9?

And I don't think anyone regularly checks to make sure that everyone's quitted tricks are consistent (at best we sometimes notice when another player has pointed the last trick wrong), I would not assign fault to the opponents for not noticing that declarer's quitted tricks were a trick short.

[blackshoe]

You cannot "restore the play to what should have happened". VixTD's approach is correct. If one or more revokes have occurred, at least one of them will have been established, and Law 64 will apply. Note that there is no automatic trick adjustment for established revokes after the first one. Law 64C will apply in that case, which would result in an assigned (not artificial) adjusted score. Note also that a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant examination of quitted tricks (Law 61C). The director must be called, as only he can authorize such examination (Law 66C).

 

Correct procedure in this case would have been to call the director as soon as you realized the disparity in the number of remaining cards in the hands. The examination of quitted tricks which located the missing card before the director was called was illegal. When the director arrives, he instructs declarer to examine the quitted tricks, the missing card is found, and Law 67B2 applies: the extra card on that trick is returned to declarer's hand. The play is then completed, and then the director deals with any established revokes, as above. We can't say what score adjustment might have been appropriate under Law 64C without seeing all four hands and knowing which was the hidden card and how the play went after that trick.

[pran]

On a point of order:

Be aware that whether the "missing" card is eventually found as an extra card in a quitted trick, on the floor, somewhere else in the room or in fact never found at all is irrelevant.

 

The outcome should be the same: The missing card is considered to having been present in the correct hand all the time, and failure to play it may constitute an established revoke.

[pescetom]

And I don't think anyone regularly checks to make sure that everyone's quitted tricks are consistent (at best we sometimes notice when another player has pointed the last trick wrong)

No, but I think you should notice if an opponents quits two cards to a trick (and if it really did look like just one card then I'm puzzled why it was assumed that the missing card had been accidentally played rather than be on the floor, up a sleeve or whatever). I wouldn't blame you if you failed to do so, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to give you 60% either. It's marginal though, I agree.

[pescetom]

On a point of order:

Be aware that whether the "missing" card is eventually found as an extra card in a quitted trick, on the floor, somewhere else in the room or in fact never found at all is irrelevant.

 

The outcome should be the same: The missing card is considered to having been present in the correct hand all the time, and failure to play it may constitute an established revoke.

 

Now that is interesting.

 

The missing card being on the floor somewhere is a much more frequent occurrence and I've never seen the law applied this way. But yes it seems logical.

[pran]

Now that is interesting.

 

The missing card being on the floor somewhere is a much more frequent occurrence and I've never seen the law applied this way. But yes it seems logical.

Simple, just apply:

LAW 14 - MISSING CARD

A. Hand Found Deficient before Play Commences

........

B. Hand Found Deficient Afterwards

When one or more hands are found to contain fewer than 13 cards, with no hand having more than 13, at any time after the opening lead is faced (until the end of the Correction Period), the Director makes a search for any missing card, and:

1. if the card is found among the played cards, Law 67 applies.

2. if the card is found elsewhere, it is restored to the deficient hand. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see B4 following).

3. if the card cannot be found, the deal is reconstructed using another pack. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see B4 following).

4. a card restored to a hand under the provisions of Section B of this Law is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient hand. It may become a penalty card, and failure to have played it may constitute a revoke.

[661_Pete]

In this clause:

LAW 67 - DEFECTIVE TRICK

B. After Both Sides Play to Next Trick

2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change

Yes this Law could have been applied in our case. I think working out all the revokes etc. involved would have taken the rest of the afternoon, and we have to vacate our venue promptly at end-of-sesson. Not to mention that I was expecting dinner when I got home!

 

I assume that "highest ranking" refers to numerical ranking, i.e. a 3 rather than a 2, etc. So what happens if the offender, (legitimately) void in the suit led, inadvertantly made two discards of the same rank in different suits?

[pran]

.......

I assume that "highest ranking" refers to numerical ranking, i.e. a 3 rather than a 2, etc. So what happens if the offender, (legitimately) void in the suit led, inadvertantly made two discards of the same rank in different suits?

Rank of Cards and Suits

Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. The suits rank downward in the order spades (♠), hearts (♥), diamonds (♦), clubs (♣). The Cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.

[chrism]

Wandering off-topic, but which takes precedence? Does the S2 rank higher or lower than the H3?

 

Not asking for a common-sense answer, but one supported by a reasoned interpretation of Law 1 (or any other applicable law).

[blackshoe]

The spade two is higher ranking than the heart three because spades rank higher than hearts. That is, in fact, what Law 1A says.

[chrism]

Well, not exactly. It gives two ways to compare ranking, one by suit and one by face value, and lists one of those ways before the other. I would agree that a credible interpretation is the one you offer, but compare Law 26, where it is explicitly stated that the number of tricks named takes precedence over suit ranking in determining whether a bid supersedes a previous one.

[blackshoe]

The pack contains 52 cards. In my opinion Law 1A says that the highest card in the deck is the spade ace, and the lowest is the club 2. It is true that Law 18B (not Law 26) says that "A bid supersedes a previous bid if it designates either the same number of odd tricks in a higher- ranking denomination or a greater number of odd tricks in any denomination," but that's not talking about the ranking of the cards.

[PeterAlan]

Note that there is no automatic trick adjustment for established revokes after the first one.

If (as here) in the same suit by the same player (Law 64 B 2).

[blackshoe]

Of course.

[pescetom]

The spade two is higher ranking than the heart three because spades rank higher than hearts. That is, in fact, what Law 1A says.

 

It is unfortunate that Law 1A uses 'rank' to order both the suits (whose order is relevant only during the auction) and the denominations (which are relevant only during play).

Nevertheless, it seems logical that setting the auction aside, rank should be related to the denomination alone, as seems implicit in Law 46 which designates a card by suit and rank.

So I would consider the heart three (not to mention the jack) as higher ranking than the spade two here unless someone can give me a good reason otherwise.

[Vampyr]

The spade two is higher ranking than the heart three because spades rank higher than hearts. That is, in fact, what Law 1A says.

 

So the ♠2 is higher than the ♥A? Interesting.

[blackshoe]

I suppose the purpose of the ranking is relevant. In playing to a trick, only 26 cards matter, the thirteen cards in the suit lead, and the thirteen cards in the trump suit, if any. The ranking of the rest of the cards in the deck is irrelevant.

[pescetom]

I suppose the purpose of the ranking is relevant. In playing to a trick, only 26 cards matter, the thirteen cards in the suit lead, and the thirteen cards in the trump suit, if any. The ranking of the rest of the cards in the deck is irrelevant.

And the 'rank' (in Law 1A terms) of the suit played and the trump suit if any is irrelevant too. The effective ranking of the suits is trumps (if any) then suit played then any other suit.