Players get to last trick and one player says " Oh! I have two cards left". All players started with 13 cards and obviously this player has not followed to one of the tricks.
Well put Ab. However (in my awkward thinking mode :) ) it is possible that the defective trick can't be established. Someone has led to a trick before the previous trick was complete so .... ? My guess is that this problem is likely to be an impatient declarer against a less experienced defender or a dummy who has been told to run a suit playing it too quickly.
@Gra said:
Well put Ab.
However (in my awkward thinking mode :) ) it is possible that the defective trick can't be established.
Someone has led to a trick before the previous trick was complete so .... ?
My guess is that this problem is likely to be an impatient declarer against a less experienced defender or a dummy who has been told to run a suit playing it too quickly.
I think that if the defective trick can't be established then the Director is going to have problems in that there may be a 64C situation (Equity) - I assume that although Law 67 only states 'Law 64A2' 64C states "When, after any established revoke,.... This may mean that an AAS might have to be awarded. (AV+, AV-)
If dummy/ declarer plays 'too quick;y' that does not mean that a defender has to follow quickly. (Of course this applies to fast-playing defenders, but is overwhelmingly probably the declaring side). However unusually quick playing is a breach of law 74A3 (and possibly 74C7 if done deliberately to disconceert opponents)
I agree that there may be difficulty in establishing which is the defective trick, particularly without giving the players information (i.e. reminding them of the earlier play) to which they are not entitled.
The footnote to L67B2 instructs the director, if possible, to avoid exposing a defender's played cards. This is specifically in the context of the offender having too few cards. It is perhaps surprising that there is not a more general statement about exposing played cards, although it is difficult to see how the director can find the defective trick without doing so.
The Dutch have a saying, 'he sees bears in the street'. Because there are no bears in Holland.
For the situation that you guys are discussing, there has to be a double whammy, a player with an extra card AND the inability to identify the defective trick.
Isn't life of us TD's difficult enough with 'single whammys' to now start exercising ourselves with two?
Perhaps. Of course the way everybody's cards are pointed may well narrow down the possibilities of which trick is defective. But if declarer has just run off nine consecutive winners, and the defender with the extra card has just eight consecutive losing tricks in front of him the poor old director is going to feel worse than a bear with a sore head in trying to untangle it.
@Abbeybear said:
Perhaps. Of course the way everybody's cards are pointed may well narrow down the possibilities of which trick is defective. But if declarer has just run off nine consecutive winners, and the defender with the extra card has just eight consecutive losing tricks in front of him the poor old director is going to feel worse than a bear with a sore head in trying to untangle it.
Comments
I think you are going to need to be a bit more specific as to what appears to have happened, please.
Players get to last trick and one player says " Oh! I have two cards left". All players started with 13 cards and obviously this player has not followed to one of the tricks.
Law 67 deals with this.
Which essentially provides as follows:
However (in my awkward thinking mode :) ) it is possible that the defective trick can't be established.
Someone has led to a trick before the previous trick was complete so .... ?
My guess is that this problem is likely to be an impatient declarer against a less experienced defender or a dummy who has been told to run a suit playing it too quickly.
I think that if the defective trick can't be established then the Director is going to have problems in that there may be a 64C situation (Equity) - I assume that although Law 67 only states 'Law 64A2' 64C states "When, after any established revoke,.... This may mean that an AAS might have to be awarded. (AV+, AV-)
If dummy/ declarer plays 'too quick;y' that does not mean that a defender has to follow quickly. (Of course this applies to fast-playing defenders, but is overwhelmingly probably the declaring side). However unusually quick playing is a breach of law 74A3 (and possibly 74C7 if done deliberately to disconceert opponents)
I agree that there may be difficulty in establishing which is the defective trick, particularly without giving the players information (i.e. reminding them of the earlier play) to which they are not entitled.
The footnote to L67B2 instructs the director, if possible, to avoid exposing a defender's played cards. This is specifically in the context of the offender having too few cards. It is perhaps surprising that there is not a more general statement about exposing played cards, although it is difficult to see how the director can find the defective trick without doing so.
The Dutch have a saying, 'he sees bears in the street'. Because there are no bears in Holland.
For the situation that you guys are discussing, there has to be a double whammy, a player with an extra card AND the inability to identify the defective trick.
Isn't life of us TD's difficult enough with 'single whammys' to now start exercising ourselves with two?
Perhaps. Of course the way everybody's cards are pointed may well narrow down the possibilities of which trick is defective. But if declarer has just run off nine consecutive winners, and the defender with the extra card has just eight consecutive losing tricks in front of him the poor old director is going to feel worse than a bear with a sore head in trying to untangle it.