[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-December-27, 15:06, said:

The trouble with that argument, which has been used for such things as saying you may not use Law 90 onwards is simple: it is merely a statement of intent by the lawmakers, and you do not rule based on it: you rule based on the laws the lawmakers have provided.

Sure, but if the objectives of adjustment are X, then we should find a way to rule under the law which allows us to do X, where possible. In this case, it's not clear whether _any_ of the possible solutions completely follow the laws as written, hence I'm trying to find a reading of the laws where we can rule with the intent of them - which seems perfectly reasonable. (Invoking 12A1 seems the best attempt at this and at least at first glance doesn't seem obviously incorrect).

[kevperk]

To those who claim that once it is too late to go back to the last trick, the lead to the trick is a club, not a heart - what if everyone played a heart? Would the club stand as the lead, with every other hand revoking?

[mjj29]

kevperk, on 2011-December-28, 15:46, said:

To those who claim that once it is too late to go back to the last trick, the lead to the trick is a club, not a heart - what if everyone played a heart? Would the club stand as the lead, with every other hand revoking?

If that is the case, at least you don't have to apply any revoke penalties, just restore equity (both sides having revoked on the same board)

[lamford]

It seems clear from the whole basis of the Laws (that you should never gain from an infraction) that equity has to be restored, and the TD judges what would have happened had the correct card been played from dummy, giving the benefit of any doubt to the non-offender.

I do not like using 12A1, because the Laws do provide indemnity, under 45D. However, we can apply the "catchall" Law 23, and decide that dummy could have been aware that by "pretending to mishear declarer" he might gain an advantage. So the TD just restores equity for dummy's infraction of 45B, in that dummy did not pick up the named card, and could have been aware it would work to his advantage.

[blackshoe]

Lol. "First the sentence, then the trial! Off with his head!"

[mjj29]

lamford, on 2011-December-28, 19:20, said:

I do not like using 12A1, because the Laws do provide indemnity, under 45D.

Surely 45D _doesn't_ provide indemnity, since 45D only applies until both sides have played to the next trick, which they have?

[pran]

mjj29, on 2011-December-29, 03:18, said:

Surely 45D _doesn't_ provide indemnity, since 45D only applies until both sides have played to the next trick, which they have?

What is the "indemnity" problem when both declarer and defender(s) have "accepted" the illegal play by dummy?

May I remind that this is the real essence of Law 45D: The illegal play must be corrected if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the following trick. Thereafter the "illegal" play by dummy has been accepted by both sides and must stand as played.

(And yes: If declarer is so absent-minded that he follows with a heart to the illegal club lead from dummy and doesn't react even before playing to the next trick then I see little reason to not ruling a revoke.)

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-December-29, 05:23, said:

What is the "indemnity" problem when both declarer and defender(s) have "accepted" the illegal play by dummy?

May I remind that this is the real essence of Law 45D: The illegal play must be corrected if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the following trick. Thereafter the "illegal" play by dummy has been accepted by both sides and must stand as played.

(And yes: If declarer is so absent-minded that he follows with a heart to the illegal club lead from dummy and doesn't react even before playing to the next trick then I see little reason to not ruling a revoke.)

Sven you add additional interpretation that does not appear in the words of the law. There is no suggestion in the law that someone is accepting the card that has been improperly placed in the played position.

[pran]

Cascade, on 2011-December-29, 05:55, said:

Sven you add additional interpretation that does not appear in the words of the law. There is no suggestion in the law that someone is accepting the card that has been improperly placed in the played position.

If a player doesn't accept it he had better object before it is too late to make a rectification without destroying any possibility of obtaining a result on the board.

[iviehoff]

This whole discussion is very similar in nature to some other cases we looked at previously. They all come down to the inconsistency/incompleteness of the laws relating to defective tricks and played cards. There are all sorts of scenarios but the basic starting point of many of them is either:
(1) Dummy (or indeed another player) fails to quit a card played before both sides have played to the next trick. (Indeed, it may be too late for declarer to rectify dummy's failure to quit the card properly as soon as someone leads - 65B3.)
(2) A player picks up a played card (his own, or someone else's) and puts it in his hand.
Just the above can be sufficient for there to be a defective trick, even though we all know what was played to it. Extra fun is added when, as in the current case, another card was quitted instead by dummy, or a player plays a card that was previously played.

It is apparent that the law is defective in the area of management of played cards. Among other things, it does not tell us what to do with a card that has been played to a previous trick, if we find it somewhere it should not be. It does not tell us if that card may be played, apparently for a second time. It does not tell us, when a card does end up being played twice, which of the occurrences of its being played count. And no doubt some other rather important things.

The law needs fixing here. There is more than one plausible answer to the unanswered questions I mention. Different people imagine different answers to those unanswered questions. It doesn't matter what ruling one suggests in these cases, they are all demonstrably wrong. The best one can do is attempt something reasonable.