[dickiegera]

After 7 cards are played it was discovered that dummy had only played 5 cards.

This was discovered as declarer led from his hand. I observed that I had 6 cards in my hand and dummy had 8. We tried to reconstruct the play of the cards with directors assistance however the person playing the dummies card had it pretty well fouled up.

What shoud be the correct ruling?
THANK YOU

[Sven Pran]

dickiegera, on Sep 3 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

After 7 cards are played it was discovered that dummy had only played 5 cards.

This was discovered as declarer led from his hand. I observed that I had 6 cards in my hand and dummy had 8. We tried to reconstruct the play of the cards with directors assistance however the person playing the dummies card had it pretty well fouled up.

What shoud be the correct ruling?
THANK YOU

Declarer is playing dummy's cards; dummy is just handling them on declarer's orders.

Did nobody at the table, not even declarer himself care how dummy handled declarer's orders?

Why was it impossible to reconstruct the few ttricks played when the irregularity was discovered?

Sounds to me as if the players were either
a: (half) asleep, or
b: drunk?

As for a ruling: The way the situation is described, and it being impossible to reconstruct the play, I shall rule the board unplayable with the declaring side fully at fault. (Law 12C2)

regards Sven

[TylerE]

Isn't Declarer's LHO also at fault for not counting his cards prior to play?

[Sven Pran]

TylerE, on Sep 3 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

Isn't Declarer's LHO also at fault for not counting his cards prior to play?

OP said nothing to indicate that any player started off with an incorrect number of cards?

Quote: After 7 cards are played it was discovered that dummy had only played 5 cards.

To me this means that there remained 8 instead of 6 cards in dummy when 7 tricks had been played and that dummy had only 5 cards quitted at this time.

Sven

[bluejak]

Perhaps, Sven, you might re-read the OP. I agree it could be clearer, but I think you will find declarer's LHO is both telling the story and a card short.

[dickiegera]

Everyone had 13 cards. The problem was that dummy
#1 did not play a card because declarer didn't always indicate a card to be played
#2 or failed to turn over a card that was played.
#3 or failed to play a card that declarer asked for.

This happened once early and nobody caught the problem.
On the declarer's lead to trick 8 it was observed by LHO that
dummy had not played to 2 tricks one of them was probably
trick 7 but no one could be certain.

Thank again

[TylerE]

Hrrm, well, that is a mess. That said, I'm not feeling very well towards *either* side here. I'm tempted to say that no table result can be obtained at this point, with both sides at fault. I don't think I can call a partnership that fails to notice dummys lack of play *twice* non-offending.

[iviehoff]

If one of the defenders can remember the distribution of the hand he started with, and the circumstances of any discards made, then we can pretty much immediately know what were the suits led of the first 7 tricks. Even if not, it shouldn't be too difficult to establish. So looking at the 5 cards played by dummy, we know the suits of the additional two tricks dummy needs to contribute to. We don't really need to know precisely which tricks they were, since ownership of the trick doesn't change. Dummy now contributes 2 more cards in suits he must contribute to, under the law on Defective Trick 67B1.

Law 67B1 says that each of the two late cards is treated as a revoke, and tricks transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. But since it is a revoke by dummy, 64A2 tells us no trick is automatically transferred. The TD can adjust the score if he believes that the defenders have been damaged by this.

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Sep 4 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Perhaps, Sven, you might re-read the OP. I agree it could be clearer, but I think you will find declarer's LHO is both telling the story and a card short.

No, I do not find that.

OP wrote: I observed that I had 6 cards in my hand and dummy had 8.

As far as I can figure it out the story-teller had exactly the correct number of cards he should have after seven tricks had been played, but dummy had two cards in excess.

This conforms with everybody starting off with thirteen cards and dummy somehow had failed to play to two of the quitted tricks.

I still consider the declaring side all (and only) at fault.

regards Sven

[Sven Pran]

iviehoff, on Sep 4 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

If one of the defenders can remember the distribution of the hand he started with, and the circumstances of any discards made, then we can pretty much immediately know what were the suits led of the first 7 tricks. Even if not, it shouldn't be too difficult to establish. So looking at the 5 cards played by dummy, we know the suits of the additional two tricks dummy needs to contribute to. We don't really need to know precisely which tricks they were, since ownership of the trick doesn't change. Dummy now contributes 2 more cards in suits he must contribute to, under the law on Defective Trick 67B1.

Law 67B1 says that each of the two late cards is treated as a revoke, and tricks transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. But since it is a revoke by dummy, 64A2 tells us no trick is automatically transferred.  The TD can adjust the score if he believes that the defenders have been damaged by this.

This is the solution I would use, but as it has been stated that it was impossible to reconstruct the play (sufficiently to identify the led suits in the tricks to which dummy has failed to play cards) I must rule Law 12C2 (no result can be obtained).

It is unbelievable to me that it could be impossible to reconstruct the play of the five and only tricks played on a board in progress and I suspect that the players involved may have been in a rather peculiar state (not fit for playing bridge).

However, handling dummy's (and his own) cards is the sole responsibility of declarer and I resent any suggestion on ruling foul (also) on defenders here.

regards Sven

[PeterE]

I agree with Sven.

[bluejak]

If only dummy had the wrong number of cards of course the other side are non-offending.

<mutter> <mutter> He said he had six cards <mutter> <mutter>

[Sven Pran]

bluejak, on Sep 4 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

If only dummy had the wrong number of cards of course the other side are non-offending.

<mutter> <mutter> He said he had six cards <mutter> <mutter>

After seven tricks had been played.

What does that indicate?

Sven