[PeterAlan]

Trick nine. Declarer leads the ♥A. There is the singleton ♥3 in dummy, but declarer doesn't call for it expecting dummy to play it automatically. Dummy fails to do so, and plays no card to the trick - no-one notices.

Trick ten. Declarer leads the ♠K, LHO follows, and when declarer looks at dummy he sees the ♥3 which he thought had been played to the previous trick! As a check, he counts dummy's cards and finds there is one too many!

Director!

Now we do have a defective trick, and Law 67B1(a) applies. "He [the offender] is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2." But Law 64B says "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: ...

3. if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy’s hand."

So does the exception that applies in dummy's etc case - where all the players can see what's gone on, and all are able to draw attention to it in time - to a normal revoke also apply in the case of a deemed revoke under the defective trick provision - where again all the players can see what's gone on, and all are able to draw attention to it in time? How do you interpret "subject to"?

PeterAlan

[campboy]

My view is that if a player is deemed to have revoked then the relevant revoke laws apply, including 64B and 64C.

[alphatango]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-27, 03:39, said:

How do you interpret "subject to"?

I replied briefly to the first thread, then did not contribute further, since dburn and others eloquently expressed all my arguments. There, however, I noted that I interpreted "subject to" as including the remainder of L64. I have two arguments in favour of this interpretation.

As a preamble, it may be worth remembering that L64A is constructed thus: When <initial condition>, then 1. if <A> then <B>, 2. if <C> then <D>, So the full reading of L64A2 should be (my emphasis):

L64A2 said:

When a revoke is established, and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player* then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, after play ends one trick is transferred to the non-offending side.

* * *

First, consider the following alternative wordings of the relevant sentence of L67B1a:

1. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick. (first clause only)
2. He is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. (second clause only)
3. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with L64A2. (actual wording)

Under 1, we would go searching through the laws, presumably find L64, and apply all the relevant sections (A, B, C). Under 2, we would be directed to 64A2, but we could never invoke the penalty since there has been no established revoke.

From those two considerations, it seems to me that in the actual wording (3), the substantive clause is the one which deems there to have been a revoke. The reference to L64A2 is only for convenience (perhaps to ensure that we don't erroneously apply 64A1 here).

* * *

Secondly, I would note that we can only apply L12A1 (adjusted score) when "these laws do not provide indemnity" to the NOS "for the particular type of violation" committed. L67B clearly provides for rectification for a defective trick, so I do not think you could use 12A1 unless there was some other infraction. Here, that infraction exists (of L45 and L65), but consider the case where declarer himself fails to play to a trick. Now if the NOS are insufficiently compensated by L64A2, they can only get further redress via L64C. But if 64C applies, so should 64B. And if all of L64 applies in the case where declarer has failed to play to a trick, then the same should be true if dummy is the offender.



EDIT: Just to note the sentence in the Introduction which states, "Where headings remain they do not limit the application
of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." Hence the reference to 64A2 does not limit the application of 64B and 64C once the offender is "deemed to have revoked". (64A1 operates too, of course, but will never be applicable.)

[blackshoe]

Perhaps the people who wrote the law would have done better not to refer to any part of Law 64, and just say "transfer one trick to the NOS".

[alphatango]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-27, 12:38, said:

Perhaps the people who wrote the law would have done better not to refer to any part of Law 64, and just say "transfer one trick to the NOS".

Subject to the restriction of the OS actually having won the defective or a subsequent trick, of course.

If it was the intention to just transfer one trick and have no further rectification, then that would be fine. But it seems to me that (as my second argument suggested) L64C is certainly intended to apply in order to protect the NOS, since 12A1 may not kick in.

[pran]

alphatango, on 2011-April-27, 13:04, said:

Subject to the restriction of the OS actually having won the defective or a subsequent trick, of course.

If it was the intention to just transfer one trick and have no further rectification, then that would be fine. But it seems to me that (as my second argument suggested) L64C is certainly intended to apply in order to protect the NOS, since 12A1 may not kick in.

Precisely!
(You beat me to the finish line )

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-27, 12:38, said:

Perhaps the people who wrote the law would have done better not to refer to any part of Law 64, and just say "transfer one trick to the NOS".

Only if that's what they intended. In the case of a defective trick, the apparent intent is to treat the rectification as if it had been a revoke, and in the case of a revoke by dummy (or other faced hand) there is no rectification (Law 64B3) subject, of course, to Law 64C.

Since the lawgivers didn't do as you suggest, unless and until someone convinces me otherwise I'm with Campboy in considering that, subject always to Law 64C, there is no initial rectification because of Law 64B3 for a defective trick violation under Law 67B1(a) by dummy or other faced hand. I think alphtango's ultimately there too, but I'm not 100% clear on that, especially as Pran appears to be agreeing with him and I suspect it's not Pran's own position. Perhaps they'd like to confirm: it's always helpful to know what ruling you're actually being given!

PeterAlan

[iviehoff]

This is a case we have discussed before in this forum. I'm pretty sure the standard approach is that revokes by dummy, including deemed revokes by dummy, do not result in the automatic transfer of any tricks, despite the unfortunate wording of 67B.

[alphatango]

PeterAlan, on 2011-April-28, 04:16, said:

Since the lawgivers didn't do as you suggest, unless and until someone convinces me otherwise I'm with Campboy in considering that, subject always to Law 64C, there is no initial rectification because of Law 64B3 for a defective trick violation under Law 67B1(a) by dummy or other faced hand. I think alphtango's ultimately there too, but I'm not 100% clear on that, especially as Pran appears to be agreeing with him and I suspect it's not Pran's own position.

Sorry, perhaps I was too verbose earlier. Yes, I agree with your position. There was at least one post in the other thread in opposition, though, so I thought it was worth setting out my logic.

I believe pran's position is that (first thread) one applies 67B when dummy's card was called (played) but not turned (I disagree with this), but that (second thread) L64B and L64C apply to the "deemed to have revoked" clause of 67B (I agree with this). They are two separate issues, and this thread deals with the latter only.

[PeterAlan]

alphatango, on 2011-April-29, 00:58, said:

Yes, I agree with your position. There was at least one post in the other thread in opposition, though, so I thought it was worth setting out my logic.

Thank you for it!

alphatango, on 2011-April-29, 00:58, said:

I believe pran's position is that (first thread) one applies 67B when dummy's card was called (played) but not turned (I disagree with this), but that (second thread) L64B and L64C apply to the "deemed to have revoked" clause of 67B (I agree with this). They are two separate issues, and this thread deals with the latter only.

That was what I intended: I wanted to fous on the second issue only, so started a separate thread.

iviehoff, on 2011-April-28, 05:22, said:

This is a case we have discussed before in this forum.

Thank you: I wasn't aware of that. Following your pointer, I had a look at the archive: I found a thread titled A Law 67 Problem shown in the listing on page 8 of the Laws and Rulings archive, but the link to the thread itself appears to be broken.

Since there appears to be consensus on the question of the application of Laws 64B & C, it seems clear that in the specific circumstances of the OP of the other thread it is highly likely that no trick adjustment applies, whether or not one views trick 9 as defective.

If one does not, the ♥3 is put in its rightful place in the quitted tricks pile, and play proceeds.

If one does, then one follows Law 687B1(a), again the ♥3 is played to trick 9, Law 64B means that the one trick penalty doesn't apply since it's dummy's hand, and there's no reason to adjust for equity under Law 64C.

In the second case, there are, I suppose, two remote possible flies in the ointment: first, when Law 64B1(a) is applied, the offender chooses which ♥ in dummy is played, and might choose another ♥ (if there is one) instead of ♥3, and, second, declarer's LHO might claim that his choice of play to the ♠K at trick 10 is affected by the absence now from dummy of whichever ♥ was played to trick 9. If a ♥ other than ♥3 was eventually played to that trick, then the wording of Law 47D seems sufficiently wide to permit the withdrawal of LHO's card and the substitution of another, but what if ♥3 was played? I suppose that whatever logic it was that led one to conclude that there was a defective trick would also lead to the conclusion that a change of play applied, so that Law 47D was also still applicable (Law 47A does not appear to apply, since the withdrawal of LHO's card is not "required" by the rectification of the current irregularity). I can suppose that all this might eventually lead to a claim for an equity adjustment under Law 64C, in particular because of Law 16D2 or if declarer made an advantageous change of ♥ played, but let's just note these as theoretical possibilities and move on (having in the meantime perhaps thought that all these potential complications amount to a very good reason for taking the simpler approach).

Of course, the likely equivalence of outcome is not so marked in some of the other hypothetical scenarios posited in the other thread.

PeterAlan