[chrism]

A curiosity from yesterday.
A defender played H6 to an early trick. At some later point, an opponent pointed out a face-down card in that defender's lap, which she restored to her hand, leading it to trick 8 (declarer and dummy followed, partner ruffed). After trick 9 was complete, I was called to the table because that defender had 5 cards remaining while everyone else had four, which is when I managed to reconstruct this sequence of events.

Not a particularly hard ruling, 67B1(b), but odd because the defender had no other heart, so the rest of the table had followed to a suit not led, and the defender had revoked by leading a card she didn't have in her hand. Perhaps more interesting if the error had been found while trick 8 was still in progress.

[Tramticket]

 chrism, on 2018-May-18, 05:33, said:

A curiosity from yesterday.
A defender played H6 to an early trick. At some later point, an opponent pointed out a face-down card in that defender's lap, which she restored to her hand, leading it to trick 8 (declarer and dummy followed, partner ruffed). After trick 9 was complete, I was called to the table because that defender had 5 cards remaining while everyone else had four, which is when I managed to reconstruct this sequence of events.

Not a particularly hard ruling, 67B1(b), but odd because the defender had no other heart, so the rest of the table had followed to a suit not led, and the defender had revoked by leading a card she didn't have in her hand. Perhaps more interesting if the error had been found while trick 8 was still in progress.

Is it not 67B3?

[barmar]

 Tramticket, on 2018-May-18, 08:58, said:

Is it not 67B3?

That seems right. 67B1b applies when "the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick". But the suit led was the one that the offender played.

Are you thinking that this applies because even though he led it, he didn't actually have that card, because it should have been in the quitted tricks?

[pran]

 barmar, on 2018-May-18, 09:22, said:

That seems right. 67B1b applies when "the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick". But the suit led was the one that the offender played.

Are you thinking that this applies because even though he led it, he didn't actually have that card, because it should have been in the quitted tricks?

OP stated that the H6 was played to an early trick and that this card was somehow restored to the offender's hand at a later time during the play

So, as

Law 67B1 said:

When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, [...]

this law does not apply since the offender had indeed played to the defective trick (the card that later was found missing from this trick).

Instead we have

Law 67B3 said:

When the Director determines that the offender did play a card to the trick, but that card was not placed among the quitted tricks, [...]

which is the applicable law in this situation.

[chrism]

Indeed 67B3 applies, though pedantically the ♥6 was placed among the quitted tricks - it was just removed from them subsequently and recycled. Operationally equivalent, of course.

[axman]

 barmar, on 2018-May-18, 09:22, said:

That seems right. 67B1b applies when "the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick". But the suit led was the one that the offender played.

Are you thinking that this applies because even though he led it, he didn't actually have that card, because it should have been in the quitted tricks?

I would believe that 67B3 is applied because the conditions specified exist. Apparently, the adjusted score Must be artificial since the law Prohibits contributing a card to the mysterious T8.

[pran]

 chrism, on 2018-May-18, 10:30, said:

Indeed 67B3 applies, though pedantically the ♥6 was placed among the quitted tricks - it was just removed from them subsequently and recycled. Operationally equivalent, of course.

Isn't that precisely what Law 67B3 describes?

[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-May-18, 10:06, said:

OP stated that the H6 was played to an early trick and that this card was somehow restored to the offender's hand at a later time during the play

the OP wasn't clear about it, but I assumed that this was the card that was noticed on the player's lap. Instead of being restored to the quitted tricks, it was restored to her hand.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2018-May-19, 16:13, said:

the OP wasn't clear about it, but I assumed that this was the card that was noticed on the player's lap. Instead of being restored to the quitted tricks, it was restored to her hand.

Quote: "A defender played H6 to an early trick." seems very clear to me?

[weejonnie]

Are we saying that the defender played 6♥ at an earlier trick and then led 6♥ at a later trick? It is not quite clear (the card in the lap could be from an earlier deal for instance).

Presumably we are going to award AV-, AV-. If that is surprising, it is worthwhile pointing out that the defender would not have led the card for the rest of the hand had the other side not pointed out that it was in her lap. they should have called the director for him to ascertain the correct position of the card.

(This can be dangerous - in America a player faced the loss of 30,000 matchpoints for not getting the director to find out the correct position of a misplaced card.)

[chrism]

The OP was about as clear as the players were. The defender did not specifically recall whether the dropped card was H6, but (1) the deck contained 52 cards at the end of the deal, of which exactly one was a H6 (I cannot vouch that the remaining 51 were all distinct, but nobody complained about the board for the rest of the session); (2) defender followed (the whole table recalled) to a H trick early, but when the quitted tricks were examined during the ruling, no card was present for that trick.

It is therefore a very strong inference, though perhaps not quite as certain as death and taxes, that the H6 was played early, knocked off the table into the player's lap, restored to her hand, and subsequently led.

[pran]

 chrism, on 2018-May-20, 05:12, said:

The OP was about as clear as the players were. The defender did not specifically recall whether the dropped card was H6, but (1) the deck contained 52 cards at the end of the deal, of which exactly one was a H6 (I cannot vouch that the remaining 51 were all distinct, but nobody complained about the board for the rest of the session); (2) defender followed (the whole table recalled) to a H trick early, but when the quitted tricks were examined during the ruling, no card was present for that trick.

It is therefore a very strong inference, though perhaps not quite as certain as death and taxes, that the H6 was played early, knocked off the table into the player's lap, restored to her hand, and subsequently led.

I think this reasoning will convince any jury (except possibly for a bent jury).

[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-May-20, 02:19, said:

Quote: "A defender played H6 to an early trick." seems very clear to me?

Quote: "At some later point, an opponent pointed out a face-down card in that defender's lap, which she restored to her hand, leading it to trick 8". Nowhere does that say that the card led to trick 8 was ♥6. But I assumed it was, since otherwise there's little point to mentioning that this card was played to the earlier trick.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2018-May-20, 15:22, said:

Quote: "At some later point, an opponent pointed out a face-down card in that defender's lap, which she restored to her hand, leading it to trick 8". Nowhere does that say that the card led to trick 8 was ♥6. But I assumed it was, since otherwise there's little point to mentioning that this card was played to the earlier trick.

This doesn't matter at all.

The convincing evidence shows that the offender did indeed play a card to trick 6, and that at a later time during the play an extra card was found in the offender's hand while at this time a card was missing from the offender's played cards.

Which precise cards were involved are immaterial, the fact is that Law 67B3 is the applicable law.