[kfay]

Here's a funny one that came up the other day.

Playing against 3NT we came down to 3 tricks left which I was basically able to claim or concede, I don't remember which. However, I noticed that my partner only had 2 cards left in his hand.

Are we obligated to draw this fact to light? (I did)

Anyway that's not the real question. After about 10 minutes of trying to find the missing card my partner discovered that it was stuck to another card of his that had already been played at, say, trick 5. This brought to mind some funny considerations, some of which are listed below:

1) At some point after my partner 'played' the card in question he revoked in the suit, thinking he was void. Should this be treated as a regular revoke? He didn't win any tricks later in the hand.

Perhaps more interestingly:

2) Hypothetically let's say my partner had more cards in the suit so he never actually revoked on this hand. But at some point he did obtain the lead. Technically, would the card he'd inadvertantly played be a penalty card? The card was never actually 'faced' even though it was 'played.' What if, after gaining the lead, he led another suit? After the missing card was discovered should some penalty be invoked for failure to lead a penalty card? Etc. Etc.

I'm sure there are more interesting questions and I believe I thought of some but now I can't remember what they were.

[jdonn]

1. Yes
2. No

[TimG]

I don't think the card that was stuck to another card was "played". Putting it face down with the quitted cards while not showing it to anyone is no different from putting it in your pocket or holding it in your hand.

So, as far as revokes go, I would rule just as it had been in his hand all along. It is most definitely not a penalty card.

[kenrexford]

This reminded me of another story, as an aside. The same basic issue came up, of a missing card. Everyone searched around for it, to no avail. Eventually, however, the lady declaring found it. It was resting on her opponents shoulder.

Kind of a weird place for a card to end up, eh?

[matmat]

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

This reminded me of another story, as an aside.  The same basic issue came up, of a missing card.  Everyone searched around for it, to no avail.  Eventually, however, the lady declaring found it.  It was resting on her opponents shoulder.

Kind of a weird place for a card to end up, eh?

this reminds me of another story, where the protagonist, rather than being squeezed out of the honor, ate it.

[iggygork]

Actually, this is one of those irregularities that are covered in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, see Law 67 B 2(a) (Defective Trick, After Both Sides Play To The Next Trick). So yes on 1. As for the penalty card possibility, if the extra card has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see footnote to 2(a)).

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...cate-Bridge.pdf, see page 81.

[brianshark]

TimG, on Dec 30 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

I don't think the card that was stuck to another card was "played". Putting it face down with the quitted cards while not showing it to anyone is no different from putting it in your pocket or holding it in your hand.

So, as far as revokes go, I would rule just as it had been in his hand all along. It is most definitely not a penalty card.

This makes the most sense to me. If this is not the rule, then I think it should be.

[Tola18]

What do we learn from this?

If you by mistake or some other reason play two cards together, do your outmost not to show them. Bang on your palm over them and take them off the table.

As long nobody has seen the extra card, you hadnt done no fault.

[brianshark]

Tola18, on Dec 30 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

What do we learn from this?

If you by mistake or some other reason play two cards together, do your outmost not to show them. Bang on your palm over them and take them off the table.

As long nobody has seen the extra card, you hadnt done no fault.

"Oops, I dropped one of my cards. It's there in my quitted stack. Was it exposed? Did anyone see it? No? Good." Pick it up and play on.

[jdonn]

Tola18, on Dec 30 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

What do we learn from this?

If you by mistake or some other reason play two cards together, do your outmost not to show them. Bang on your palm over them and take them off the table.

As long nobody has seen the extra card, you hadnt done no fault.

You speak as though something is wrong with that (sorry if I'm misinterpreting). It sounds perfect to me.

[Tola18]

jdonn, on Dec 30 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Tola18, on Dec 30 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

What do we learn from this?

If you by mistake or some other reason play two cards together, do your outmost not to show them. Bang on your palm over them and take them off the table.

As long nobody has seen the extra card, you hadnt done no fault.

You speak as though something is wrong with that (sorry if I'm misinterpreting). It sounds perfect to me.

It is my practical advice, NOT irony. I have myself seen this happen several times. You must be a quick-thinker here and know what to do!

[Free]

This has nothing to do with playing 2 cards at the same time. It's a pretty common and simple problem to handle.

What has to happen is as follows:
- the card that is missing is returned to the player's hand
- the play continues like nothing happens (please read on!)
- afterwards there's a check for revokes, and revokes are handled the usual way

I happened to get accros one of such problems a few years ago, which became a slam swing! Dummy had a long running suit, without any side entries. So declarer played of that suit (but once there were 2 cards played - nobody noticed). Declarer went to his hand, and only then found out there was a card missing. Ok, no problem, the card returns to the hand (= dummy). Ofcourse, our dear declarer could no longer reach dummy, and came 1 trick short!

[Fluffy]

matmat, on Dec 30 2008, 08:09 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

This reminded me of another story, as an aside.  The same basic issue came up, of a missing card.  Everyone searched around for it, to no avail.  Eventually, however, the lady declaring found it.  It was resting on her opponents shoulder.

Kind of a weird place for a card to end up, eh?

this reminds me of another story, where the protagonist, rather than being squeezed out of the honor, ate it.

Lol, I am still laughing of this.


I know of another history where after bidding 7♠ with screens, the opponent showed ♠A over the screen in fun, declarer took the ace off his hand and destroyed it before it could be chased.

[Tola18]

Free, on Dec 31 2008, 09:35 AM, said:

I happened to get accros one of such problems a few years ago, which became a slam swing!  Dummy had a long running suit, without any side entries.  So declarer played of that suit (but once there were 2 cards played - nobody noticed).  Declarer went to his hand, and only then found out there was a card missing.  Ok, no problem, the card returns to the hand (= dummy).  Ofcourse, our dear declarer could no longer reach dummy, and came 1 trick short!

Interesting.

Dummy is normally a responsibility of all the 3 active players. Thus no revoke punishments on dummy.

My quiestion is, should the board be cancelled? Or the board reconstructed as the play was apparently automatic once all 13 cards were there (and declarer no beginner. With beginners you never know anything; very common they dont see the rest is big).


What is done if dummy has only 12 cards and nobody notices it?

[Tola18]

Fluffy, on Dec 31 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

I know of another history where after bidding 7♠ with screens, the opponent showed ♠A over the screen in fun, declarer took the ace off his hand and destroyed it before it could be chased.

AW! Thus Lefty had only 12 cards.

Whatever the outcome, it was probably cheaper then 7S made, respectively 7sp down when 6sp was cold 12 tricks.

What did the director? Screens are usually played only on high-niveu competition, thus all players were above average and thus also the director.

[dburn]

kfay, on Dec 30 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Here's a funny one that came up the other day.

Playing against 3NT we came down to 3 tricks left which I was basically able to claim or concede, I don't remember which.  However, I noticed that my partner only had 2 cards left in his hand. 

Are we obligated to draw this fact to light? (I did)

Anyway that's not the real question.  After about 10 minutes of trying to find the missing card my partner discovered that it was stuck to another card of his that had already been played at, say, trick 5.  This brought to mind some funny considerations, some of which are listed below:

1) At some point after my partner 'played' the card in question he revoked in the suit, thinking he was void.  Should this be treated as a regular revoke?  He didn't win any tricks later in the hand.

Perhaps more interestingly:

2) Hypothetically let's say my partner had more cards in the suit so he never actually revoked on this hand.  But at some point he did obtain the lead.  Technically, would the card he'd inadvertantly played be a penalty card?  The card was never actually 'faced' even though it was 'played.'  What if, after gaining the lead, he led another suit?  After the missing card was discovered should some penalty be invoked for failure to lead a penalty card?  Etc. Etc. 

I'm sure there are more interesting questions and I believe I thought of some but now I can't remember what they were.

As to a player's obligations:

2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

Law 9

A. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity

2. Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period.

4. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side.

As to the ruling that should be given:

2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

Law 67

After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or 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), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows.

2. [a] When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change.

[b] A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender’s hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

* The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender’s played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defender’s hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card.

[Fluffy]

Tola18, on Dec 31 2008, 04:51 PM, said:

What did the director? Screens are usually played only on high-niveu competition, thus all players were above average and thus also the director.

They just wrote down 7♠ down 1

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Dec 31 2008, 11:25 AM, said:

I know of another history where after bidding 7♠ with screens, the opponent showed ♠A over the screen in fun, declarer took the ace off his hand and destroyed it before it could be chased.

In the junior team championships, our opponents bid 7♥ which I doubled (I was on lead, as I would also be against 7NT, and our side had the spades.) LHO asked what it meant, probably thinking it might be some save suggestion. I said nothing, and simply flashed him the ace of hearts (behind screens - partner couldn't see it.)

He was kind enough not to grab it out of my hand and destroy it.