After trick 8, Declarer has 6 cards, others 5 cards
8 tricks into a contract, and we discover declarer has 6 cards in hand, with everyone else having 5 cards. Everyone had followed to the 8th trick. Declarer has 7 quitted tricks. (So everyone has 13 cards)
I’m just wondering about the correct or recommended procedure from this point.
The TD is called and the only way to find out where the omission happened was to reface the earlier cards one at a time from the beginning and discovered at trick 6 declarer had failed to follow suit and either not put a card down or restored it to his hand. The Ace had won in dummy, so defective (missing) card did not win the trick.
The extra card was then removed and replaced into declarers quitted cards.
Play then resumes and director rules equivalent to a non winning revoke by declarer and adjusts the score by minus one trick.
Neither Law 13 or Law 82B appear to apply. I’d be interested to find out if this is a reasonable ruling and procedure.
I’m just wondering about the correct or recommended procedure from this point.
The TD is called and the only way to find out where the omission happened was to reface the earlier cards one at a time from the beginning and discovered at trick 6 declarer had failed to follow suit and either not put a card down or restored it to his hand. The Ace had won in dummy, so defective (missing) card did not win the trick.
The extra card was then removed and replaced into declarers quitted cards.
Play then resumes and director rules equivalent to a non winning revoke by declarer and adjusts the score by minus one trick.
Neither Law 13 or Law 82B appear to apply. I’d be interested to find out if this is a reasonable ruling and procedure.
Comments
There's a specific law referencing defective tricks, it's Law 67. On a quick check it's specifically 67 B 1 applies here and the ruling is broadly correct, declarer has to place a card to make up the missing trick and is considered to have revoked for a one trick transfer. As far as I can see, although they contribute a card to make up the trick, that doesn't affect who won the trick even if it would've taken the trick, and it's always a one trick transfer.
That seems to cover it perfectly. I was just concerned the whole hand was being replayed and refreshed in the players mind; tricks and discards. I’m pleased the ruling was correct, it seemed to make sense.
Thanks again, Steve
There's a general principle that we avoid exposing cards from quitted tricks if we can (see https://forums.ebu.co.uk/discussion/1762/established-revoke-information-disclosure)
Ideally the director would ascertain which trick was defective having sent the players away from the table, but of course this may not be possible.
What is intriguing is what information the various players are allowed to have.
Cleary opponents need to know what card is belatedly played to the defective trick.
It would be possible to avoid any players seeing which trick the card was placed in, but perhaps a bit OTT.
Only the offending player needs to know whether they are following suit or choosing any card. Do the opponents have a right to know? Do they have a right to know what the suit led to the defective trick was?
For example: " you should play a spade but you can't so you can choose any card" tells the opponents that the offender has no spades left, which strikes me as information they shouldn't be given.
I can hear those angels dancing on the pinhead again...
Well, the law does specify that if they have a card of the right suit they have to substitute that one. And that they face the card before placing it. It also specifies that they place it in the right trick, which would reveal which trick is defective. Ideally the director would determine the defective trick and instruct the offender as to the law without revealing further information about the play, practice seems unlikely to be quite so neat.
"You should play a spade but you can't so you can choose any card" I don't think reveals information that wouldn't be reavealed either when they showed out on the defective trick or a later one. And it's information revealed to the opponents as the result of an infraction.
I think the first thing the TD should do is look at the direction of each trick in the four rows of quitted tricks. At least that is likely to narrow the defective trick.