re defective trick

[Lali]

In a club game, we were called to the table.  Declarer and one op hold 2 cards, dummy 4 and other defender 3.  Dummy was asleep at the wheel and when declarer called for a card from a previous round, dummy did not pick up and turn over a card.  It is now the next trick, where both sides have played to the next trick so is this Law 67 and a 1 trick penalty against the declaring side?  I remember something about dummy cannot revoke?  What would be the ruling?

[pwg]

I'll give this a go...  If I understand correctly, then somewhere earlier in the play, there was a defective trick to which dummy did not contribute.  L67 requires the director to find the defective trick and correct it.  If this results in a revoke (as specified in L67) then normal processing of the revoke (L64) applies.  If the revoke was by dummy (yes, dummy can revoke) there is no penalty (rectification) (L64B3) - However the requirement to restore equity (L64C) still applies.

[Ed Reppert]

"We"?

Is there a trick in progress? Who has played to the trick? Where was the lead?

I'm guessing that declarer led to the current trick, his LHO played, and now it is dummy to play. In that case, I would apply Law 67B1. First, the TD must determine which trick was defective, and then, if dummy has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, one such card must be placed in the defective trick. If he has no card of the suit led, he can place any card in the defective trick. In neither case does the card affect the ownership of the trick, and in both cases, there is a one trick "revoke" penalty on the declaring side.

"Dummy cannot revoke" is a myth. In any case, this is not a revoke ruling, which would be made under Laws 61-64. Law 67B1 says "[the offender] is deemed to have revoked". The provision of Law 64B3 regarding revokes from dummy, which is that if dummy revokes there is no rectification, does not apply.

Crossposted with pwg.

[pwg]

"
The provision of Law 64B3 regarding revokes from dummy, which is that if dummy revokes there is no rectification, does not apply.

Ed, thanks for your comment.  I was taken by the item in law 67 which said
"...  He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2."
Since the transfer was in accordance with 64A2, I assumed that 64 B
"There is no rectification as in A ..."
would still apply.

Peter.

[Ed Reppert]

I suppose you could read it either way. My understanding is that 64B doesn't apply, but I can't point to a definitive source for that interpretation.

[Lali]

The defective trick was the 9th trick.  Dummy did not pick up the card and turn it over.  Declarer played to next trick, her LHO followed and declarer attempted to follow suit with the card that was supposed to have been played to the previous trick and then noticed that there were 4 cards in dummy and only 2 in her hand.  I was told by someone yesterday, that the card not turned over by the dummy is still considered a "played" card even if the dummy fell asleep at the wheel, so it just gets put with the defective trick.  Declarer can now choose from any one of the remaining 3 cards and there is no penalty and Law 67 does not apply.  If someone has a different take?  please explain and post.

[Ed Reppert]

It is certainly true that the card declarer named to be played to trick nine from dummy is a "played card" from the time he names it. It is equally true that trick nine, at the time dummy is to play to trick ten, is discovered to be defective. There is no provision in law that I can see, that would support the interpretation that failure to include a "played" card amongst one's quitted tricks "doesn't count" for purposes of Law 67. Suppose a defender had put a card in the played position for trick nine, and then absent-mindedly put it back in his hand instead of amongst his quitted tricks. It was a played card â€" shall we now rule that Law 67 doesn't apply? I don't think so.

[bluejak]

Trick nine.  Four cards played - but one of them does not get turned over.  Trick ten starts, two cards played.

Two ways of looking at it.  Dummy's card was played to trick nine, but not turned over.  So presumably we just put it into trick nine, no penalty, and we adjust only if the defence was later damaged - eg by misdefending because of the presence of a non-card in dummy.

Alternatively trick nine was defective.  I do not believe the Law tells us clearly nor have I seen an authority.  However, this feels like a defective trick problem so I would rule it that way.  I could try asking on my own forum to see if one of the sensible half-dozen or so posters help but the last time I said I would do that [with a problem from the NZ site] I got no sensible answers whatever!  :-X

So, I treat it as a defective trick.  One trick is transferred unless declarer takes no trick whatever from the defective trick onwards.  Law 64B is not relevant: Law 67B1 tells us to transfer a trick based on Law 64A2, not on Law 64B.

Note that I was asked why I had not given an opinion on this.  I found a lot of interesting threads had appeared here.  As I mentioned before, there is a disagreement between my laptop and this site, and my laptop is barred!  But I do all my forum work from my laptop!  :-*

[pwg]

Bluejak said:
" One trick is transferred unless declarer takes no trick whatever from the defective trick onwards.  Law 64B is not relevant: Law 67B1 tells us to transfer a trick based on Law 64A2, not on Law 64B."

I've been following the further discussions of this topic on the IBLF Laws & Rulings forum, where the contrary view has been advocated.  This led me to the WBC minute (Philadelphia, 2010) which said:
"9. The committee considered the situation of a claim by declarer
whereupon it is noticed that dummy at an earlier stage has failed to
contribute a card to a trick and consequently has a card too many. It
was agreed that no penalty is applied (Law 64B3) . . . "

While the case is not identical, it suggests strongly to me that 64B (and 64C) should still apply when 64A2 is brought in.

[Ed Reppert]

It suggests to me that the committee had its head stuck up... well, you get the idea. 8)

[pwg]

Ed, I bow before your undoubtedly superior knowledge of the anatomical dexterity of the wbf laws committee.

[bluejak]

Peter Goddard: we are considering a situation where Law 67B1 refers you directly to Law 64A2, rather than Law 64 generally.  While I understand that this view is not certain, I am afraid your example carries no weight, because the WBFLC minute refers to a standard revoke which is dealt with under Law 64 generally, which of course includes Law 64B.  The minute does not refer to a Law 67B1 case.