[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2012-October-23, 02:00, said:

Wasn't it only pran, out on a limb, who argued for the second one?

My recollection is that Bluejak has said that a defective trick may be defined by what cards are found in the played cards of that trick, and is not always defined by what cards anyone remembers being played to it at the time, even if there is unanimity on that.

Suppose a card is played, is misplaced and then is played again. Certainly in that situation I believe Bluejak has argued that the first trick it was apparently played to is defective, even if everyone agrees that the card was played to that trick. If that is so, then the criterion that everyone recalls 4 cards being properly played to a trick, and which ones, does not suffice to avoid it being defective.

I don't like this argument, but I give it time of day because it has been argued by rather more than one person out on a limb.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-23, 03:27, said:

Is it not clear in this new example that West has played their card based on MI and that Dummy could have known that not quitting the card might work to their advantage? I see no need to resort to a warped interpretation of Law 67.

Yes, but we are informed that "could have known" (23) is for score adjustment only, and it would be nice to find something which allows us to fix it at the point of occurrence and let play proceed.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-23, 09:58, said:

Yes, but we are informed that "could have known" (23) is for score adjustment only, and it would be nice to find something which allows us to fix it at the point of occurrence and let play proceed.

My suggestion is that the best way of achieving that result is to use Law 47 and allow West to withdraw the ♥9 (without it becoming a penalty card) and substitute the ♥J. Both of the alternative approaches (23 and 67) would require the damage to remain in the table result and a (possible) later adjustment.

[blackshoe]

Use Law 47 how?

[alanmet]

Just out of interest was the queen moved to a played position or was it in its original position.
ie was it still with the 9 and 3?
Cheers
Alan

bluejak, on 2012-October-17, 18:04, said:

Dummy holds ♥ Q93. In the middle of the hand, LHO leads the ♥J, declarer calls for the queen, RHO wins the ♥A and declarer plays her singleton heart.

Now RHO leads another heart, declarer discards, LHO plays the ♥T, and declarer looks at dummy - to find the ♥Q is still there!

Apparently dummy forgot to turn the queen over after it had been played. While RHO knew it had gone from dummy, LHO had forgotten and felt damaged.

Apart from declarer, the other three players were very inexperienced, and in this case [a real case] there is no real damage, since the ♥T would presumably win the trick. But I did not want to make up a case, so I have given you a real case.

The question is, if LHO had been damaged, even though he should have realised the queen was not in dummy, would he be entitled to redress? Under which Law? Is dummy's failure to turn his card face down an infraction?

[pran]

alanmet, on 2012-October-25, 04:29, said:

Just out of interest was the queen moved to a played position or was it in its original position.
ie was it still with the 9 and 3?
Cheers
Alan

And while we are at it: What if the 9 or 3 had been turned over (instead of the Queen). Any objection to applying Law 45D in that case? (The card incorrectly "played" by dummy stands as played because each side has already played to the next trick. The Queen is no longer to be considered played!)