[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-07, 06:12, said:

I believe what I said was entirely was not inconsistent with that view of matters, at least in relation to the trick where defender played the misappropriated card. I believe I also recently argued in another thread that it is more than just you who do argue for this interpretation, despite the absurd conclusions it sometimes leads one to.

If you do take that view of matters, and if the played cards had been more carefully examined at the end of the hand, dicovering a card missing from a trick where dummy originally played a trump, then it is that trick with the missing card which is defective. And since dummy's card is the one that is missing from the played cards for that trick, rectification under Law 67 would including deeming dummy to have revoked on that trick. I do hope that no one would argue for such a ridiculous ruling in this case.

I also hope that the laws are fixed so that one would not even contemplate such a ruling if the reason that a trick is defective when the played cards are examined is because the played card has been removed or lost from it.

You apparently overlook two equally important facts:

1: There is no rectification because of a revoke committed with dummy's hand (except rectification necessary to restore equity for NOS)

2: When a defender has "stolen" a card from Dummy then no player can have an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of cards among his played cards. Dummy will now have a total of 12 cards while the defender will have a total of 14.

There is still a deficient trick here as a card is missing from dummy's quitted cards, but this deficiendy is caused by the defender somehow violating Law 7B2: [...]No player shall touch any cards other than his own[...].

The laws have no specific rectification or penalty for this irregularity so the natural actiopn by TD will be to apply Law 12A1.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-November-07, 08:55, said:

You apparently overlook two equally important facts:
1: There is no rectification because of a revoke committed with dummy's hand (except rectification necessary to restore equity for NOS)
2: When a defender has "stolen" a card from Dummy then no player can have an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of cards among his played cards. Dummy will now have a total of 12 cards while the defender will have a total of 14.

There is still a deficient trick here as a card is missing from dummy's quitted cards, but this deficiendy is caused by the defender somehow violating Law 7B2: [...]No player shall touch any cards other than his own[...].

You are correct, I had overlooked that the definition you mention at point 2 does not describe the situation applying to the card missing from dummy's trick in this case.

So the conclusion I had already come to, that Law 67 does not apply, is even more certain on this occasion. Good.

I hadn't overlooked point 1, I just didn't want to go there at all. Unfortunately this particular bit of the law is full of holes too. Law 67 tells us to transfer a trick for a deemed revoke, seemingly without the exception for dummy provided for in the case of an actual revoke. Many credible people argue that the exception for dummy nevertheless applies, but the law is just inconsistent here. This is not the only problem with that bit of wording.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-November-07, 08:44, said:

Nobody argues that the play was done in time, but that is irrelevant.

What matters is the state of the art at the time of investigation. If the investigation reveals that a player (at that time) has an incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of quitted cards then this is a fact that according to Law 67B means there is a defective trick somewhere.

"Incorrect number of cards in his hand and a correspondingly incorrect number of quitted cards" implies that the sum of the two numbers is 13. In this case, the sum of the two numbers is either 12 or 14.

[benlessard]

Quote

One curiosity of this hand is that, afterwards, we find 14 cards in the defender's hand, yet apparently he managed to play through the hand without finding himself with a spare card.

There was a claim so nobody noticed there was a missing card on dummy.

Indeed I dont see anything in law 67 to correct the situation. However I would still apply law 67 because I strongly believe in the spirit of the law vs letter of the law.

[jhenrikj]

benlessard, on 2012-November-01, 10:31, said:

IMO its probably possible that dummy played a card in front of the WEST player and he tought he had already played... and took the card when trick was over.

iviehoff, on 2012-November-07, 03:47, said:

The player has in fact played a card to the trick. Whilst you are correct that the player took a card from dummy and put it among his played cards, it is intermediate steps between those two actions that makes it a card played to that trick. If you look at the laws on what makes a card a played card, you will see that he did everything to make it a played card: in brief paraphrase he took it from his hand and faced it in the played position.

If we had a law that said a played card is not actually a played card if it should not have been in a player's hand in the first place, or if we had a law that said a misplaced played card should be put back into the correct position among the played cards for the trick it was first played to, then we would be secure in applying Law 67. But we don't have any such laws.

If the scenario benlessard described above, west has not played a card from his hand...

If west had taken the card from the dummy and put it in his hand and then played it, yes then you are right, but if it was as benlessard thought, then law 67 for sure must apply.

EDIT: By definition a "Hand" is the cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof. If a player picks up a surplus card during the play not originally in his hand, that card does not belong to his hand. If it does not belong to his hand, then it's not a played card since law 45A says that you have to detach card from your hand, and you have not done that if you detach a card not belong to your hand. So, still west has not played a card to that trick and then law 67 does apply...

This post has been edited by jhenrikj: 2012-November-07, 15:09