[fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com]

Hi,

After reading the original problem posted by David and views of many informed folks,
we can look at it from 2 angles:

a) As per the letter of the law, is there any ambiguity in interpretation of law to
handle this scenario? Possibly yes as folks on both sides seem to have strong views.
In interpretation, we need to consider a key aspect of current bridge laws clearly
don't refer to a scenario of played card becoming unplayed anywhere in its statute,
hence in all likelihood this case has to treated as no offense committed (just
over-sight and no penalties). Also from a more generic stand-point, we should
not read each law in isolation and look for continuity (read between the lines)
especially when there is interpretation problem. Of course, we also need to
simplify and make laws less unambiguous so that different interpretations are not
possible especially for poor local-club directors.

b) As per the letter of the law where primarily non-offending side should not be damaged,
in my view it is clear case of no defective card since it was played to earlier trick.
Just put the played card in original quited trick and move on with no revoke or any
penalties to offending side.

Rgds,
RV

[dburn]

dburn, on 2011-April-28, 06:24, said:

Trick seven is defective, since the card played to trick two remained played to trick two and could not be played again to trick seven. It is true that the Laws do not make this explicit, but it is obvious to everybody except sven and bluejak that it is not actually possible to deem a card "unplayed" when it has been played.

bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 11:50, said:

Oh, yes? When did I say that?

blackshoe, on 2011-April-24, 16:04, said:

Declarer calls for the ♠3 from dummy. The ♠3 ends up, not amongst dummy's quitted tricks, but on the floor. Is there a defective trick?

bluejak, on 2011-April-24, 17:40, said:

Yes, there is a defective trick.

This means that when the ♠3 falls to the floor (which need not be at the completion of the trick - it may happen later), the trick to which it was played becomes defective. For that to happen, it must have in some fashion become "unplayed" to the trick (otherwise four cards would still have been played to the trick).

[iviehoff]

What we conclude from this is that:

(1) Bluejak and Pran believe that the defectiveness of a trick is nothing to do with what cards have been played to it, it is to do with what cards are later apparently found in it according to the arrangement of the played cards. A quitted card disarranged makes a trick defective. A played card not quitted and put in exactly the right place before a card is led to the next trick means the trick is defective.

(2) Everyone else thinks that if 4 cards are known to have been played to a trick, then if we cannot initially find the four cards played to it in the arrangement of played cards, then we should look for the cards known to be played to the trick and put them back in the right place.

Neither of these viewpoints is precisely supported by the laws. Both are an attempt to make common sense of some unclear/incomplete drafting.

Under the Bluejak interpretation, it seems that when a trick is found defective, any card can be restored to it, not just the card originally known to have been played to it, even if the location of that card is known. If that card, previously played, is not among the played cards, then nothing can apparently stop it being played again.

Under the Bluejak interpretation, be very, very careful with your played cards. If a played card is disarranged, even accidentally, even by third party agency, you now have a defective trick or tricks and you will be deemed to have revoked. Finding the played card and attempting to put it where it should be is no defence.

Out here in the real world, cards not quitted in time are quitted late and no one cares 99.999% of the time; played cards knocked onto the floor are put back where they were knocked from 99.999% of the time and no one thinks of claiming a revoke.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-03, 02:51, said:

What we conclude from this is that:

(1) Bluejak and Pran believe that the defectiveness of a trick is nothing to do with what cards have been played to it, it is to do with what cards are later apparently found in it according to the arrangement of the played cards. A quitted card disarranged makes a trick defective. A played card not quitted and put in exactly the right place before a card is led to the next trick means the trick is defective.

(2) Everyone else thinks that if 4 cards are known to have been played to a trick, then if we cannot initially find the four cards played to it in the arrangement of played cards, then we should look for the cards known to be played to the trick and put them back in the right place.

Neither of these viewpoints is precisely supported by the laws. Both are an attempt to make common sense of some unclear/incomplete drafting.

Under the Bluejak interpretation, it seems that when a trick is found defective, any card can be restored to it, not just the card originally known to have been played to it, even if the location of that card is known. If that card, previously played, is not among the played cards, then nothing can apparently stop it being played again.

Under the Bluejak interpretation, be very, very careful with your played cards. If a played card is disarranged, even accidentally, even by third party agency, you now have a defective trick or tricks and you will be deemed to have revoked. Finding the played card and attempting to put it where it should be is no defence.

Out here in the real world, cards not quitted in time are quitted late and no one cares 99.999% of the time; played cards knocked onto the floor are put back where they were knocked from 99.999% of the time and no one thinks of claiming a revoke.

All this seem very interesting, but you (like several other posters on this thread) must have overlooked a major point:

Law 67 on defective tricks is (almost?) always initially invoked by the discovery that a player holds an incorrect number of cards in his hand.

Then the provisions in Law 67 are applied if the number of cards quitted and held by a player totals 13 which implies that he apparently must have failed to play exactly one card to each trick quitted so far.

All the abstractions about a quitted card ending up on the floor or anywhere else where it shouldn't be are simply irrelevant so long as a quitted card does not find it's way back into the hand from which it was played (or conversely a card that should not yet have been played finds it's way from a hand to among the quitted cards from that hand).

Once you grasp this you will probably appreciate that a "defective" trick is the consequence of a player at any time holding a number of cards in his hand and a corresponding number of quitted cards in front of him that (while totalling 13) is inconsistent with the number of tricks played.

And if you carefully examine Law 67 you might even appreciate that this is precisely what is expressed in that law?

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-May-03, 03:57, said:

Once you grasp this you will probably appreciate that a "defective" trick is the consequence of a player at any time holding a number of cards in his hand and a corresponding number of quitted cards in front of him that (while totalling 13) is inconsistent with the number of tricks played.

And if you carefully examine Law 67 you might even appreciate that this is precisely what is expressed in that law?

As I have frequently pointed out, if you carefully examine law 67 you will find that it does not use the phrase "quitted cards" which you keep using, but rather the phrase "played cards". Since there is no other definition of "played card" in the laws, those of us who disagree with you are using the normal English meaning that a played card is one which has been played. If law 67 means "quitted cards", why does it not say that?

[pran]

campboy, on 2011-May-03, 05:06, said:

As I have frequently pointed out, if you carefully examine law 67 you will find that it does not use the phrase "quitted cards" which you keep using, but rather the phrase "played cards". Since there is no other definition of "played card" in the laws, those of us who disagree with you are using the normal English meaning that a played card is one which has been played. If law 67 means "quitted cards", why does it not say that?

The term "defective tricks" dates back to the time of rubber bridge when the four cards to each trick were collected in one bunch and kept collected in front of one player on the side that won the trick.

This term still sticks, but as the cards in each trick are kept separate for each player (as quitted cards in front of him) a "trick" is now a logical entity, no longer a physical entity. And we have for each player a collection of played cards that becomes quitted when turned face down following the completion of each trick.

For the purpose of applying Law 67 a player's card is then either unplayed (i.e. in his hand) or played (i.e. on the table in front of him), it cannot be both. (A third possibility is of course that it can be missing, in which case we have a Law 13 or Law 14 situation).

And Law 67 instructs the Director when the counts of a player's played and unplayed cards are inconsistent with the number of tricks played (although totalling 13 as it should always be), to take action as if the player has failed to play to a trick or has played too many cards to a trick as the case may be.

Quote

... when the Director determines that there had 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)

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-May-03, 07:15, said:

For the purpose of applying Law 67 a player's card is then either unplayed (i.e. in his hand) or played (i.e. on the table in front of him), it cannot be both. (A third possibility is of course that it can be missing, in which case we have a Law 13 or Law 14 situation).

In other words you claim that for the purpose of law 67 we should interpret "played" as meaning something other than the normal English meaning of the word. I see no reason why your approach is consistent with the law as written.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-May-03, 03:57, said:

All the abstractions about a quitted card ending up on the floor or anywhere else where it shouldn't be are simply irrelevant so long as a quitted card does not find it's way back into the hand from which it was played (or conversely a card that should not yet have been played finds it's way from a hand to among the quitted cards from that hand).

Once you grasp this you will probably appreciate that a "defective" trick is the consequence of a player at any time holding a number of cards in his hand and a corresponding number of quitted cards in front of him that (while totalling 13) is inconsistent with the number of tricks played.

And if you carefully examine Law 67 you might even appreciate that this is precisely what is expressed in that law?

But this is precisely about the situation where the played card finds it way back into the hand where it was played from. That was the case at the start of this thead - dummy failed to turn the played card, so it looked like it was still in dummy.

It is nonsense to assume that the card was not played, when in fact we know it was. If a card was played and is now not in the played cards, it seems to make a great deal more sense to put the played card where it should be with the played cards, rather than apply a law which you admit is intended to deal with the situation of "card not played".

[blackshoe]

Cards: a card may be played (the player holding the card took an action with that card, or the declarer designated the card in a manner consistent with Law 45), unplayed (the aforementioned criteria are not met). It may also, independently of whether played or unplayed, be (1) in a player's hand, (2) amongst the player's quitted tricks, (3) in the "played" position in front of the player, (4) somewhere else. It is not impossible for a played card to be in a player's hand, or for an unplayed card to be amongst the player's quitted tricks. So no, Sven's approach is not consistent with the law.

Tricks: a trick may be (1) in progress, (2) completed, (3) quitted. A trick in progress contains from one to three cards. Once a trick contains four cards, it is completed. When each player has turned his played card and placed it amongst his quitted tricks (Law 65A) the trick is quitted. A trick will contain only played cards, unless there has been some irregularity. I note that by the definition in the laws, a trick in progress is "flawed", and also that the definition does not require that the four cards which constitute a trick be physically co-located. Note that a (correct) quitted trick contains four cards, one from each player.

A quitted trick which does not contain four cards is defective. That does not mean that we apply Law 67, willy-nilly. Law 67B contains the assumption that if a player has an "extra" card in his hand, and a corresponding missing card amongst his quitted tricks, that he failed to play a card to the trick. When, however, it can be determined that such is not the case (as here) Law 67 does not apply, because the assumption is demonstrably false. The played card found amongst dummy's unplayed cards (♥3 was it?) should simply be placed in its proper position amongst dummy's quitted tricks (Law 65A). If the card were found in a closed hand, this should still be the ruling, so long as the TD determines that the card was played.

[axman]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-03, 02:51, said:

What we conclude from this is that:

(1) Bluejak and Pran believe that the defectiveness of a trick is nothing to do with what cards have been played to it, it is to do with what cards are later apparently found in it according to the arrangement of the played cards. A quitted card disarranged makes a trick defective. A played card not quitted and put in exactly the right place before a card is led to the next trick means the trick is defective.

(2) Everyone else thinks that if 4 cards are known to have been played to a trick, then if we cannot initially find the four cards played to it in the arrangement of played cards, then we should look for the cards known to be played to the trick and put them back in the right place.

Neither of these viewpoints is precisely supported by the laws. Both are an attempt to make common sense of some unclear/incomplete drafting.

It might be said that I am resentful as to being incorporated into a group to which I in fact do not belong and have every desire to not belong. There indeed is a third group, namely, the group that asserts that while the law [headings are not law] mentions the jargon 'defective trick' 11 times, at no place does it say 'a defective trick is....' so ergo, neither I nor anybody else knows what a defective is as according to law. One may wish he did, and even claim he does, but he does not. Conversely, until the law says, 'a defective trick is....' he cannot know as according to law.

[dburn]

pran, on 2011-May-03, 03:57, said:

Once you grasp this you will probably appreciate that a "defective" trick is the consequence of a player at any time holding a number of cards in his hand and a corresponding number of quitted cards in front of him that (while totalling 13) is inconsistent with the number of tricks played.

I have cited already the fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", but although pran speaks impeccable English, it is possible that he may not speak impeccable Latin. I fasten therefore on the word "consequence" in the above, and refer here to the fallacy of "affirming the consequent". In simple terms, this takes the form:

• If p is true, then q is true.
  
• q is true.
  
• Therefore p is true.

To show that p is not necessarily true when q is necessarily true, we replace p by the proposition "dburn is dead" and q by the proposition "dburn will never agree with pran on the application of Law 67 to the question posed in this thread". The argument becomes:

• If dburn is dead, then dburn will never agree with pran on the application of Law 67 to the question posed in this thread. [This is obviously true.]
  
• dburn will never agree with pran on the application of Law 67 to the question posed in this thread. [This, I assure you, is equally obviously true.]
  
• Therefore dburn is dead. [This, though a consummation devoutly to be wished by (among others) pran, is for the moment obviously false.]

Now, if we replace p by the proposition "there has been a defective trick" and q by the proposition "the cards held by a player added to the quitted cards in front of that player amount to a total inconsistent with the number of tricks played", what pran argues that Law 67 says is this:

• If there has been a defective trick, then the cards held by a player added to the quitted cards in front of that player will amount to a total inconsistent with the number of tricks played. [This is not completely obviously true, but it is true enough for present purposes.]
  
• The cards held by a player added to the quitted cards in front of that player amount to a total inconsistent with the number of tricks played. [We assume this to be empirically true.]
  
• Therefore there has been a defective trick. [This, in the case where there is some other empirically true explanation for the discrepancy, is obviously false.]

Whereas the most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that there has been a defective trick, other explanations are possible (though less likely). Law 67 does not compel the Director to conclude that the most likely explanation must be the true explanation, although the words of the Law should be revised in order not to lead capable Directors such as pran to affirm the consequent.

Law 14, though, is deeply and seriously defective and should be revised as a matter of urgency. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2011-April-28, 16:24, said:

Let me see... The OP:

I put some emphasis in your OP to show that you considered the ♥3 played. So far, so good. We are with you.


When it later turns out that the trick only has three cards, you call the trick defective. Law 67 says fairly clearly that it is a requirement for a defective trick that a player doesnt play a card [or plays too many cards] to the trick. This means that you must consider the ♥3 as not played.

First played, then not played.

In Burn's words: At some point you must have "unplayed" the ♥3.

What a very strange interpretation. I do not mind you posting this rubbish so long as there is no imputation that it comes from me. Unfortunately you suggested that it did.

I think the idea of a card being played and then unplayed which apparently you find credible amazing and clearly wrong. I dislike the suggestion it has anything to do with my arguments.

Trinidad, on 2011-April-28, 18:28, said:

- You are entitled to your view.
- If you want to make a case that Law 67 could have been formulated better, you did a good job and I hope that this will be improved in the next edition of the Laws.
- However, there is nothing in the Law book that explicitly supports your view, not Law 67A, not Law 67B and certainly not the introduction to the Laws.
- At least the view that a trick to which 4x1 card has been played is not defective does have support in Law 67A as well as in the introduction to the Laws.

I am glad we agree on that.

I didn't misquote you at all. I used the quote feature in the forum software. Everything that I quoted is literally what you wrote and nothing else (apart for the fact that I emphasised some parts for clarity where I clearly indicated that the emphasis was mine).

Kindly refrain from making false accusations.

You quoted something of mine and then suggested that it came to some completely ludicrous conclusion, which, of course, it does not. You have suggested a card becomes unplayed: dburn has suggested it: I think it an incredible suggestion. I find your presumption that I thought anything so ridiculous annoying and quoting things I have said [but not this ridiculous assertion] as evidence that I support this assertion of yours and dburn's is annoying.

dburn, on 2011-April-29, 02:16, said:

This means that when the ♠3 falls to the floor (which need not be at the completion of the trick - it may happen later), the trick to which it was played becomes defective. For that to happen, it must have in some fashion become "unplayed" to the trick (otherwise four cards would still have been played to the trick).

Same comment: it is an incredible assumption.

Now, if the two of you wish to make this strange assertion, feel free: but do not ascribe it to me: I am not silly enough to assert that a played card becomes unplayed by falling to the floor or in any other way.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 15:41, said:

What a very strange interpretation. I do not mind you posting this rubbish so long as there is no imputation that it comes from me. Unfortunately you suggested that it did.

I think the idea of a card being played and then unplayed which apparently you find credible amazing and clearly wrong. I dislike the suggestion it has anything to do with my arguments.


You quoted something of mine and then suggested that it came to some completely ludicrous conclusion, which, of course, it does not. You have suggested a card becomes unplayed: dburn has suggested it: I think it an incredible suggestion. I find your presumption that I thought anything so ridiculous annoying and quoting things I have said [but not this ridiculous assertion] as evidence that I support this assertion of yours and dburn's is annoying.


Same comment: it is an incredible assumption.

Now, if the two of you wish to make this strange assertion, feel free: but do not ascribe it to me: I am not silly enough to assert that a played card becomes unplayed by falling to the floor or in any other way.

Yet you were declaring a trick as defective when it has had exactly one card played to it from each hand? If you're not (as people were assuming) declaring a card which was played has no longer been played - how else are you ruling the trick to be defective?

[bluejak]

If a trick contains a number of cards other than four it is defective.

[nige1]

IMO, in any common-sense interpretation, a trick is defective if it contains the wrong cards or the wrong number of cards. For example...

• If you drop an offending card on the floor or eat it.
• If you play two cards from your hand, or a joker from another deck.

A trick which was OK in the past, may become defective later. For example, a trick may become defective because a player

• purloins a winner, played to the trick, for re-use.
• slips an embarrassing loser into a quitted trick. before making a claim.
• surreptitiously corrects an established revoke.

In these and many other ways. a careless player may gain from creating an defective trick, when opponents don't notice. Hence, as in the case of revokes, a deterrent penalty would be appropriate, when opponents do notice..

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 19:21, said:

If a trick contains a number of cards other than four it is defective.

So a trick once not defective can become defective?

How many cards were played to a defective trick which originally had 4 cards played to it now that it is defective?

(I assume you're glossing over the defective tricks which contain exactly 4 cards)

[iviehoff]

mjj29, on 2011-May-12, 16:43, said:

Yet you were declaring a trick as defective when it has had exactly one card played to it from each hand? If you're not (as people were assuming) declaring a card which was played has no longer been played - how else are you ruling the trick to be defective?

I think you'll find my description quoted explains how Bluejak can logically find a trick to be defective even though once upon a time precisely four cards were played to it, and a card is never unplayed.

iviehoff, on 2011-May-03, 02:51, said:

What we conclude from this is that:

(1) Bluejak and Pran believe that the defectiveness of a trick is nothing to do with what cards have been played to it, it is to do with what cards are later apparently found in it according to the arrangement of the played cards. A quitted card disarranged makes a trick defective. A played card not quitted and put in exactly the right place before a card is led to the next trick means the trick is defective.

(2) Everyone else thinks that if 4 cards are known to have been played to a trick, then if we cannot initially find the four cards played to it in the arrangement of played cards, then we should look for the cards known to be played to the trick and put them back in the right place.

Someone objected to my description "everyone else", because that someone either agreed with (1), or had a third view, I forget which.

An interesting question arising is whether a card can be played twice (or more) times. And if it is found in a trick where it was played for the second time, whether that trick is defective. Some, eg dburn, have argued that once it is played, it is not available to be played a second time, and any apparent attempt to play it second time does not count as playing it, and its physical presence in a trick of four cards does not save that trick from being defective. I'm thinking Bluejak might argue that the card was played and the trick is not defective, and looks elsewhere for an irregularity to rectify, eg, the trick where it was first played is now defective, and someone must have committed an irregularity in relation to the disposition of played cards.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-13, 05:14, said:

[...]
An interesting question arising is whether a card can be played twice (or more) times. And if it is found in a trick where it was played for the second time, whether that trick is defective. Some, eg dburn, have argued that once it is played, it is not available to be played a second time, and any apparent attempt to play it second time does not count as playing it, and its physical presence in a trick of four cards does not save that trick from being defective. I'm thinking Bluejak might argue that the card was played and the trick is not defective, and looks elsewhere for an irregularity to rectify, eg, the trick where it was first played is now defective, and someone must have committed an irregularity in relation to the disposition of played cards.

Sure it can.

First of all on the question "What is a defective trick":
When all four cards to each trick are collected together and kept in front of one of the players on the side that won the trick then a defective trick is any such collection of less than or more than four cards in a pile. I don't know of any place where duplicate is played in this fashion. However, the term "defective trick" must be seen in this light.

In duplicate each player maintains custody of his own cards, either as played cards or as non-played cards. Here (by definition) a defective trick exists whenever at any time his number of unplayed cards is inconsistent with the number of tricks yet to be played although his total number of cards possessed is exactly thirteen.

A defective trick can exist because the player failed to place exactly one card among his played cards when a trick was played, if he has placed a card among his played cards although no trick was played or if he has somehow restored a played card to among his unplayed cards.

In the latter case nothing prevents him from playing the same card to more than one trick.

I have a problem understanding why it can be essential in the latter case to determine which of the two (or more) tricks to which that same card has been played shall be deemed defective. It appears to me that the consequences from the rectification (revoke) on the table result will be the same in either case, and the Director is anyway responsible for equity.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-May-13, 05:49, said:

I have a problem understanding why it can be essential in the latter case to determine which of the two (or more) tricks to which that same card has been played shall be deemed defective. It appears to me that the consequences from the rectification (revoke) on the table result will be the same in either case, and the Director is anyway responsible for equity.

You are right, it is never essential, the director has enough powers to maintain the equity of the NOS. It can just be a lot less messy to put the card back into the trick we know it was played in, ie rectify the irregularity of failing to quit the trick, so that the trick is no longer defective, rather than rectify the irregularity of defective trick. In the particular case that OP cited, the card not quitted had not yet been played a second time, and the trick it hadn't been quitted to was the one only just completed. Yet if you ruled defective trick, he would be free to place any legal card in the defective trick, and play the card a second time. It is just so much less messy just to turn the card over and get on with things.

It is common practice to keep a card face up for a little while, and preserving the right to look at the cards played to the trick which might have been quitted very quickly before you saw them. Yet if play nevertheless proceeds because they didn't notice you doing this, very quickly you can find you have a defective trick and have revoked. Out here in the real world, we just turn the card over late.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 19:21, said:

If a trick contains a number of cards other than four it is defective.

What does "contains" mean in this context? Given that the four cards played to a not defective trick are not co-located.

Is a trick still in progress (not all four players having played to it yet) defective?