[chrism]

I was called to the table in the middle of trick 5 to face a novel (to me) situation.

South was declarer; on this trick, West had led SA, dummy followed with SJ, and East played S3.

At this point, South noticed that he himself held SA. They looked at the card backs and found that the spurious ace belonged to West, having been retained from the previous board. At this point, they called me.

Primarily a 13C ruling, with no adjusted score to be awarded since the surplus card had not been played to a quitted trick. Consideration of a PP to West for not counting her cards before the deal (in this case, a verbal warning to an inexperienced player).

But what is the correct unscrambling of the trick currently in progress, with West on lead and two cards already played?

[pran]

 chrism, on 2020-March-06, 03:07, said:

I was called to the table in the middle of trick 5 to face a novel (to me) situation.

South was declarer; on this trick, West had led SA, dummy followed with SJ, and East played S3.

At this point, South noticed that he himself held SA. They looked at the card backs and found that the spurious ace belonged to West, having been retained from the previous board. At this point, they called me.

Primarily a 13C ruling, with no adjusted score to be awarded since the surplus card had not been played to a quitted trick. Consideration of a PP to West for not counting her cards before the deal (in this case, a verbal warning to an inexperienced player).

But what is the correct unscrambling of the trick currently in progress, with West on lead and two cards already played?

Law 13 C said:

Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

so the ♠A 'led' by West is just removed and is considered never been played. Consequently the ♠J has been led out of turn from Dummy.

Law 53 said:

A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead
Prior to the thirteenth trick, any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see B). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).
B. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead
Subject to Law 53A, if it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn, but Law 16C applies.

So either: East may accept the ♠J from Dummy as the correct lead to the trick,
or: Both the ♠J (from Dummy) and the ♠3 (from East) are retracted and a proper lead is made by West.

[shyams]

 pran, on 2020-March-06, 04:19, said:

So either: East may accept the ♠J from Dummy as the correct lead to the trick,
or: Both the ♠J (from Dummy) and the ♠3 (from East) are retracted and a proper lead is made by West.

Given that West is at fault, why would the NOS be penalised by offering East an option to accept "dummy's incorrect lead"

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2020-March-06, 04:19, said:

so the ♠A 'led' by West is just removed and is considered never been played. Consequently the ♠J has been led out of turn from Dummy.

That is not how I read law 13C:

Quote

Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

This means that the ♠J is considered the first card to the trick. There is no rectification and certainly not an option for the OS.

I would suggest to the lawmakers that the 2007 Law 13A returns for discoveries when a trick is in play: We try to continue as normal as possible. If the NOS has been damaged, due to the irregularity in this trick, the TD may assign an AS. This means that we do not adjust scores that are caused by the misevaluation of the 14 card hand in the auction or similar things.

In this case, it probably doesn't matter. Whether declarer plays the jack under his ace or under the opponent's ace...

But it is easy to construct cases where it does matter and a completely innocent player ets a bad result due to this rule:
Suppose that South is in 3NT. East has overcalled in hearts. In a deck with 13 hearts, West should be out of hearts after a few tricks if East's overcall was based on a five card suit. And if it was based on four, the defense doesn't have enough hearts to cash to set the contract. Declarer finesses into the safe West hand to develop his 9th trick... and West produces the ♥2: It is the 14th heart (from another deck). Declarer will think: "OK. East has overcalled on a 4 card suit... No problem." Declarer plays from dummy and now East says: "Hey! I also have the ♥2!".

With the current writeup of the Laws, this would mean that West has not played the ♥2 (since he never was supposed to have it), but that dummy now is forced to lead the heart that he played to the trick, giving the contract to the defenders. There is no redress for declarer with the current laws. I am fairly sure that this was not the lawmakers' intention.

Rik

[RMB1]

I don't think ♠7 was a lead from dummy.

♠A lead is withdrawn. I think declarer can withdraw ♠7 play, if so ♠3 is withdrawn and becomes a penalty card. West is on lead with restrictions.

Declarer can instead choose to not withdraw ♠7 and it becomes a lead out of turn, accepted by ♠3 play, and play continues.

[chrism]

That was my ruling.

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2020-March-06, 08:31, said:

I don't think ♠7 was a lead from dummy.

♠A lead is withdrawn. I think declarer can withdraw ♠7 play, if so ♠3 is withdrawn and becomes a penalty card. West is on lead with restrictions.

Declarer can instead choose to not withdraw ♠7 and it becomes a lead out of turn, accepted by ♠3 play, and play continues.

How did ♠7 enter this case? - I cannot find it mentioned anywhere.

And a strict reading of Law 13 makes it clear that West never led the ♠A for the simple reason that he never held that card.
Thus his "lead" was not withdrawn, it never existed among his cards.

[pran]

 chrism, on 2020-March-06, 09:26, said:

That was my ruling.

Law 13 C said:

Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

So sorry: Your ruling was not correct.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2020-March-06, 10:17, said:

How did ♠7 enter this case? - I cannot find it mentioned anywhere.

Maybe he was reading it upside down -- 7 and J are mirrors of each other.

Quote

And a strict reading of Law 13 makes it clear that West never led the ♠A for the simple reason that he never held that card.
Thus his "lead" was not withdrawn, it never existed among his cards.

It still seems wrong to consider dummy's play to be a lead to the trick (either legal or premature), since West was on lead.

Law 13 seems to be incomplete. 13B2 allows the TD to decide what to do if one player has an extra card and another is missing that card, possibly awarding an adjusted score if the error impacted the bidding and play. But it seems like a player holding an extra ace from a different deal probably impacted the bidding and play, yet we aren't allowed to adjust the result in this case.

[pescetom]

 RMB1, on 2020-March-06, 08:31, said:

I don't think ♠J was a lead from dummy.

♠A lead is withdrawn. I think declarer can withdraw ♠J play, if so ♠3 is withdrawn and becomes a penalty card. West is on lead with restrictions.

That is certainly the common sense solution, but it is hard to read 13C as saying this.

 RMB1, on 2020-March-06, 08:31, said:

Declarer can instead choose to not withdraw ♠J and it becomes a lead out of turn, accepted by ♠3 play, and play continues.

One might read 13C as implicitly implying this, but it does not seem common sense to me.


The fact that the law does not mention the possibility that the surplus card is discovered during the trick to which it was played (or similar) suggests to me that the lawmakers were having a bad day, rather than trying to make things more interesting for TD or to violate common sense. So maybe it is appropriate not to interpret this law strictly and just follow its spirit.


ps. ♠7 corrected to J in quotes for clarity

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2020-March-06, 10:32, said:

Law 13 seems to be incomplete. 13B2 allows the TD to decide what to do if one player has an extra card and another is missing that card, possibly awarding an adjusted score if the error impacted the bidding and play. But it seems like a player holding an extra ace from a different deal probably impacted the bidding and play, yet we aren't allowed to adjust the result in this case.

Also it should address the case that the surplus card is discovered during the trick to which it is played (or whatever), as this can be corrected following the usual logic.

[pran]

 pescetom, on 2020-March-06, 11:34, said:

Also it should address the case that the surplus card is discovered during the trick to which it is played (or whatever), as this can be corrected following the usual logic.

Be aware that the irregularity here is West's violation of

Law 7 B said:

Removal of Cards from Board
1. Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position.
2. Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards.
3. During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of an opponent or the Director.

Everything else that appear as irregularities here was subsequent to, and a consequence of this violation.

The fact that the surplus card could be mistaken for a genuine card is irrelevant, the laws do not distinguish between an apparently genuine card and some other material like a postcard, an identity card or even a blank card being handled this way. Extraneous matters are just removed as specified in Law 13C.

I am confident that this is the real reason why Law 13C explicitly specifies "no further rectification".
If the Director later finds that an innocent party (North/South) has been damaged he should use Law 12A1.

[blackshoe]

West led to the trick. He led a spade. However, the card he played to the trick has been removed, since it didn't belong to this deal. Two cards have been played to the trick, and it is now South's turn to play. Whatever he decides to play, West now(?) plays to the trick. The question mark is because I don't know if there's a case for requiring West to put some other spade out before South plays. If there is, I would do that. Either way, if the defense later gains from this mess, I think the score should be adjusted. Also, EW rates a procedural penalty.

[PeterAlan]

I'm with RMB1 and chrism on this. In particular, I consider that it's perverse to require the play of ♠J from dummy to be treated as a lead out of turn to the trick in question, ie that the non-offending side is now treated as having committed the offence of leading out of turn whilst the offending side, having removed its surplus card, is now spotless. (Notwithstanding that S could have realised the irregularity before playing from dummy.) Since the irregularity has come to the Director's attention before S has played to the trick, the Director should decide on any relevant rectification(s) before S does so.

Definitions said:

Cancelled: see “Withdrawn”.
...
Irregularity: a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.
...
Rectification: the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director’s attention.
...
Retracted: see “Withdrawn”.
...
Withdrawn: actions said to be ‘withdrawn’ include actions that are ‘cancelled’ and cards that are ‘retracted’.

Law 13C said:

C. Surplus Card
Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

I read Law 13C as limited to saying that there is no 'further rectification' for the irregularities of the existence and removal of the surplus card. It does not, however, mean that there should be no rectification for any different and further irregularity that may arise as a consequence of such removal, as occurs here; that seems to be common ground.

Where I differ from pran et al is that I regard the Definitions quoted as sufficient for the Director to hold that W's lead to the trick has been withdrawn ('cancelled'); the Director is entitled to interpret the Laws in a sensible way where that leads to an appropriate rectification and is not otherwise contrary to law. The lead reverts to W; dummy's ♠J may be withdrawn under Law 47D; and (if dummy does not play ♠J to the trick), so may E's ♠3 (with any relevant UI consequences; it's not clear to me that the Director should treat it as a penalty card).

NB: Quite apart from W's putative failure to count cards correctly, the lead of ♠A is in itself an irregularity, as it is 'a deviation from correct procedure'.

[sanst]

 PeterAlan, on 2020-March-06, 21:51, said:

The lead reverts to W; dummy's ♠J may be withdrawn under Law 47D; and (if dummy does not play ♠J to the trick), so may E's ♠3 (with any relevant UI consequences; it's not clear to me that the Director should treat it as a penalty card).

It’s a penalty card according to law 49 since it was not exposed in the normal line of play. Otherwise I completely agree with you. It’s nonsense to read the laws as pran does. W is the culprit here and the NOS should be treated as non offending. The solution to apply law 12A1 if they are damaged is making things unnecessarily complicated. The law states that the director has discretionary powers and IMO he should use these in this case in a way that’s in accordance with the statement in the Preface to the laws “the increased discretion given to Tournament Directors, the attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalise”.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2020-March-06, 15:24, said:

If the Director later finds that an innocent party (North/South) has been damaged he should use Law 12A1.

That would be entirely reasonable, but this is not possible. Law 12A1 only allows the TD to assign an AS when the laws empower him to do.

law 12 A1 said:

A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score
On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86B). This includes: 1. The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.

Unfortunately, Law 13C doesnot merely not empower a TD to award an AS. It specifically forbids him to award one:

law 13C said:

C. Surplus Card
Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick.

The lawmakers have been sleeping here.

Rik

[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2020-March-07, 06:32, said:

That would be entirely reasonable, but this is not possible. Law 12A1 only allows the TD to assign an AS when the laws empower him to do.
Rik

It appears to me that you refer only to the heading of Law 12A although you correctly quote also

Law 12A1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.

I see no limitation like what you claim here?

[sanst]

The TD should also consider whether west’s ace of spades has influenced the auction. If so, an AS is quite probable. Taking all into account I don’t think that this a simple “ Straightforward "Read from the Law book" ruling”.

[axman]

 pran, on 2020-March-07, 08:59, said:

It appears to me that you refer only to the heading of Law 12A although you correctly quote also

I see no limitation like what you claim here?

The law prescribed the rectification of no further rectification.

[pran]

 axman, on 2020-March-07, 13:51, said:

The law prescribed the rectification of no further rectification.

I should have looked up: Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge earlier.
Here I found:

Law 13C
If more than 52 cards are dealt, the surplus card is removed and play continues. If a surplus card
is found amongst the played cards, the Director adjusts the score if the play of that additional card
affected the outcome.

which clearly differs in its last sentence above from the present law text .

According to this the Director must judge if the play of the surplus card as such will affect the outcome.
What matters is only the play of the surplus card, not whether the play of the entire affected trick has been completed.

(On a point of order: Official comments to a law text takes precedence over the law text proper whenever there is a discrepancy.)

So in my opinion we have a situation where the (surplus) card originally led (by West) to a trick has been discarded after being played.
North and East followed suit to that trick, technically establishing their plays so far as correct.
South and West must then in turn play their cards to the trick, after which play of the board is completed.

TD musts now judge whether the original lead of the ♠A has affected the final outcome on the board.

But I strongly feel that a clarification of this law (which was introduced in its original form in 2007) is required.