[Zelandakh]

But the trick is not defective by the definition in Law 67. The offender has played one, and only one, card to the defective trick. It is only that they have not quitted the card played to it. A defective trick is one where at least one of the players has played to it a number of cards other than one. The card has not become un-played to the trick just because it was not turned over! Otherwise defenders would be in the same situation when they leave their card face up and the next trick goes LHO - CHO - RHO. That is just craziness imho.

There seem to me only 3 ways of viewing the situation - either Dummy could have been aware of potential damage by not quitting the trick (23); or West's card could be judged to be based on misinformation (47E); or there is no infraction. 47E is perhaps a bit of a stretch but at least it would allow us to obtain a proper bridge result in a case where actual damage has occurred.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-19, 04:23, said:

But the trick is not defective by the definition in Law 67.

Part of the problem is that Law 67 doesn't contain a clearcut definition. In a previous discussion, some people argued that a defective trick occurs "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick", but others that one exists whenever "one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards".

[Zelandakh]

Unless you use the first definition, both 67A and 67B are completely meaningless. Two options are given: either an offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick or they have played more than one card to the trick. Common sense dictates that this acts as a definition since there is no provision for any other case.

[campboy]

There is IMO a difference between a) declarer calls for a card, which dummy places in a played position but then fails to turn over and b) declarer calls for a card and dummy doesn't do anything. In a) the card is among dummy's played cards and not in his hand, no matter which way up it is, so the trick is not defective (and the same applies to Zel's example of a defender leaving a card face up); in b) you could argue as gnasher suggests. I don't think it's clear from the OP which of the two actually happened.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-19, 05:25, said:

Unless you use the first definition, both 67A and 67B are completely meaningless. Two options are given: either an offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick or they have played more than one card to the trick. Common sense dictates that this acts as a definition since there is no provision for any other case.

I'm not sure how much meaning or common sense you'll find, but here's the earlier thread:
http://www.bridgebas...efective-trick/

[Zelandakh]

I found a lot of sense from dburn at least.

[aguahombre]

Yes, back in April David Burn suggested we put the played card where played cards go and get on with it. Posters here (many) have said virtually the same thing. In neither thread was there any damage from the boo boo. But, we apparently haven't gotten on with it

Maybe Dburn, Barmar, Gnasher, Zel, etc., are correct; maybe they (we) aren't. But, getting on with life in this situation will ensure a Bridge result which would have been attained without the irregularity. It seems to be much ado about nothing.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2012-October-19, 06:12, said:

There is IMO a difference between a) declarer calls for a card, which dummy places in a played position but then fails to turn over and b) declarer calls for a card and dummy doesn't do anything. In a) the card is among dummy's played cards and not in his hand, no matter which way up it is, so the trick is not defective (and the same applies to Zel's example of a defender leaving a card face up); in b) you could argue as gnasher suggests. I don't think it's clear from the OP which of the two actually happened.

The way many people play dummy's cards, the "played position" is just a matter of an inch or two from where dummy's cards are spread. In my case, for instance, I think there's usually just a little more than a card's length of space between the edge of the table and dummy's cards; when I play a card, I think I just slide it back into this space. With some other players, the most obvious distinction between the card being played and the rest may be that dummy is grasping it. There's not generally a problem with all the varieties of ways that people play the dummy card, because the other players see the action and it's obvious which one he's playing (plus, declarer named it).

But if the card is left there after the trick, it may not be so obvious that it's no longer one of dummy's spread cards.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-18, 11:02, said:

No damage has been done unless we let declarer use the already-played Queen again. Do we really need reference to some law's particular wording, here? Lose the Queen from dummy's unplayed cards, and tell Declarer that he may choose to play the nine or the three to this second trick.

While true in the actual case, I am interested in the Law generally. As I asked in the OP, suppose we change it slightly so a defender is damaged. What then?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 18:51, said:

While true in the actual case, I am interested in the Law generally. As I asked in the OP, suppose we change it slightly so a defender is damaged. What then?

As am I (interested) in the Law generally. I just can't figure out how the OP situation could be changed to garner damage and enable such meaningful discussion. If someone does, I'm in --- to reading the discussion, if not able to contribute to it.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-22, 19:29, said:

As am I (interested) in the Law generally. I just can't figure out how the OP situation could be changed to garner damage and enable such meaningful discussion. If someone does, I'm in --- to reading the discussion, if not able to contribute to it.

Suppose the holding was QT64 in dummy: now the queen has been played but still appears in dummy not having been turned over.

After declarer's RHO leads this suit back, his LHO has to choose a card to play from J98. He sees it makes no difference so plays the 8.

At this moment the problem is discovered, the queen is put amongst the played cards and declarer wins the trick with dummy's ten. If the queen had been turned face down no doubt LHO would have played the jack and won the trick. That's damage.

[aguahombre]

O.K. Now, someone might come up with something better than Probst and 23. But, that's all I can think of. Can we use it to allow a different card to be played, or only to adjust at the end of the hand?

[blackshoe]

Law 23 can only be used to adjust the score.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 19:52, said:

Law 23 can only be used to adjust the score.

Oh, well.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-October-22, 18:51, said:

While true in the actual case, I am interested in the Law generally.

The main point of interest in the law is that we would have a better idea what to do if it was rewritten to make it a bit more workable.

The only applicable law that potentially has a specific rectification for damage here is Law 67 on defective trick. Those people who have spotted that Law 67 is a foetid pile, and thus try to avoid treading in it, and believe that they have a respectable argument for doing so, will have to head for Law 23 instead.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-October-19, 04:29, said:

Part of the problem is that Law 67 doesn't contain a clearcut definition. In a previous discussion, some people argued that a defective trick occurs "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick", but others that one exists whenever "one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards".

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

[pran]

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

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

I don't know if I am (still) alone, but Law 67 is pretty clear to me:

It applies whenever a player (including dummy) has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of quitted cards.

It doesn't matter whether this situation is the result of playing more than one card to a trick, failing to play a card to a trick or taking back a card already played to a trick.

Those who argue that the Queen was played by declarer naming it although dummy never placed the Queen among the played cards should please consider the following situations:

a: Dummy "plays" a card different from the card called by declarer and this is discovered more than two tricks later.
Do we agree that the card "played" by dummy rather than the card called by declarer is the card played? (See Law 45D)

b: Dummy "plays" a card without declarer naming any card at all and nobody objects. Do we agree that this card "played" by dummy is indeed played? (Very common occurrence when there is only one card that can be legally played by dummy. However, notice Law 57C1 !)

c: Dummy fails to "play" the card called by declarer and this is discovered more than two tricks later.

d: Dummy takes one of his already quitted cards and places it among his cards available to be played. Nobody objects.

In all four situations the physical action by dummy is different from the respective action (if any) called for by declarer and the resulting cards seen as available to be played from dummy are different from what they should be according to declarer's instructions.

In c: and d: an additional effect is that dummy after the irregularity has an incorrect number of cards available to be played. Law 67 is there precisely to handle this situation, not from the history of the play but from the situation that is revealed to exist at a certain time.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-October-23, 02:50, said:

Lots of stuff.

Why couldn't I keep my big mouth shut?

[Zelandakh]

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.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2012-October-23, 03:16, said:

Why couldn't I keep my big mouth shut?

<writing something down in his notebook>

Thanks, Gordon, I may just quote you.