[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

As a test question, this thing is seriously flawed, and I would have simply written such on the test. No doubt I would have received a zero for that. OTOH, it occurs to me that what Al posted is a paraphrase. Perhaps the actual wording of the question would be useful, if Al still has that.

Regarding severity, if the laws lead to a rectification that seems too severe, well, that's too bad, but you do what the laws say to do.

Discussion of what the laws should do belongs in a different forum.

Quote

Do we then agree that L66A is the applicable law as far as the alleged defective trick (T2) is concerned?

Apparently not.

Well, that is how I understood axman since he only referred to L67A, never to L67B.
I must admit i felt rather confused when trying to follow his logic.

regards Sven

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

West led to trick three before South had played a card to trick two. That is clearly a violation of Law 56!

It isn't clear to me. Perhaps you can show the logic?

Well, assuming that no card has technically been played from dummy (by declarer) to the third heart led by West:

After this "lead" by West Declarer turns his still faced small heart from trick 1 and produces his Ace of hearts to trick two. If neccessary he has told Dummy to take back the third heart "played" from dummy as such play has not been requested by himself. So far there is no irregularity committed by the declaring side.

What is now the state of the third heart led by West?

regards Sven

[bali 2]

This is the exact wording of the question, but once more I didn't ask about the ruling but about the severity of the law :

" S is declarer in 3NT, W leads the HQ. South (having 3 small in dummy and A5 in hand ) plays the 5 and inspects for a while the convention card. The others have turned their cards face down, but the H5 stays face up on the table. West continues Jack of Hearts and now S turns the H5 faced down as played at trick 2.
West plays the H9 in trick 3, in dummy a heart and now East discovers the mistake and calls the TD. "

The answer is : " Law 67B1a : South must play a card he could have legally played to trick 2 ( HA ) but West remains the winner of that trick, + one trick penalty."

Al. Ohana

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

West led to trick three before South had played a card to trick two. That is clearly a violation of Law 56!

It isn't clear to me. Perhaps you can show the logic?

Well, assuming that no card has technically been played from dummy (by declarer) to the third heart led by West:

After this "lead" by West Declarer turns his still faced small heart from trick 1 and produces his Ace of hearts to trick two. If neccessary he has told Dummy to take back the third heart "played" from dummy as such play has not been requested by himself. So far there is no irregularity committed by the declaring side.

What is now the state of the third heart led by West?

regards Sven

It's face up on the table. So?

Where does Law 56 come in?

[blackshoe]

bali 2, on Nov 8 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

This is the exact wording of the question, but once more I didn't ask about the ruling but about the severity of the law :

" S is declarer in 3NT, W leads the HQ. South (having 3 small in dummy and A5 in hand ) plays the 5 and inspects for a while the convention card. The others have turned their cards face down, but the H5 stays face up on the table. West continues Jack of Hearts and now S turns the H5 faced down as played at trick 2.
West plays the H9 in trick 3, in dummy a heart and now East discovers the mistake and calls the TD. "

The answer is : " Law 67B1a : South must play a card he could have legally played to trick 2 ( HA ) but West remains the winner of that trick, + one trick penalty."

Al. Ohana

Whether the answer given is the correct answer is debatable. As for the question of severity, on the assumption the given answer is correct, I already answered that.

Side note: the question as worded is definitely flawed, as it does not indicate how or when dummy's cards got played to these tricks. Are we then to assume there was no irregularity there? Also, are we to presume that by "the convention card" the question means "the opponents' convention card"?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

West led to trick three before South had played a card to trick two. That is clearly a violation of Law 56!

It isn't clear to me. Perhaps you can show the logic?

Well, assuming that no card has technically been played from dummy (by declarer) to the third heart led by West:

After this "lead" by West Declarer turns his still faced small heart from trick 1 and produces his Ace of hearts to trick two. If neccessary he has told Dummy to take back the third heart "played" from dummy as such play has not been requested by himself. So far there is no irregularity committed by the declaring side.

What is now the state of the third heart led by West?

regards Sven

It's face up on the table. So?

Where does Law 56 come in?

It is a card exposed (actually led) by West in a situation where South has the lead.

According to Law 56 (DEFENDER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN See Law 54D.)
South now has the options either to accept this lead as legal or to have the card so led treated as a major penalty card.

regards Sven

[iviehoff]

bali 2, on Nov 7 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

Don't you think that this law is too much harsh for declarer ?

L 12B2 says "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side."

In the particular case, the outcome is unfortunate. But it is just one example, where by chance the card that has to be put in the defective trick is an Ace, and declarer failed to win his Ace earlier because he somehow suspended his attention for such a long time. We can surely construct examples where a lead penalty would change the result by 13 tricks, but we don't have people saying that in general penalty card regulations are too harsh.

I don't think people have strong opinions about this law because it is so rarely applied. If you think the law could be better balanced, then you could make some suggestion in the Changing Laws & Regulations forum.

[Vampyr]

bali 2, on Nov 8 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

This is the exact wording of the question, but once more I didn't ask about the ruling but about the severity of the law

This is a difficult question to answer, though, if one doesn't think the law was correctly applied. What can such a one say, but "yes, it's too harsh, so it's a good thing that it could never happen."

[mycroft]

Like many, I would return the question 'missing information'. Did South play a card from Dummy at trick 2? Did Dummy play a card from Dummy? What did East do?

According to the question, however, "in dummy a heart" at trick 3. If that means that declarer called a heart from dummy, then there's a problem. If it means that dummy had xxx there was just a forced play, that's another story.

If South just forgot when he was, looked down at the H5 and thought it was trick 2, having played from dummy, then the answer applies as stated (and yes, is harsh. But how often do you leave a card up to think and not turn it down, then finish thinking and play to trick two without turning T1 down, *and* think that you played out of turn afterward?)

Vampyr has my statement, which is "yeah, it's harsh, but it never happens." I've had one deficient trick in 10 years of directing (several defective tricks, but that's a card stuck or a fifth card played to the trick). Of course, revoking in a grand is a good way to let them make it off the Ace of trump, this is another way; which one's more common, you think?

[pran]

mycroft, on Nov 10 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

According to the question, however, "in dummy a heart" at trick 3.  If that means that declarer called a heart from dummy, then there's a problem.  If it means that dummy had xxx there was just a forced play, that's another story.

From Law 57C1:
A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play.

We need to know if Declarer ever ordered card(s) played from Dummy (or himself physically played such cards)

[bali 2]

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

mycroft, on Nov 10 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

According to the question, however, "in dummy a heart" at trick 3.  If that means that declarer called a heart from dummy, then there's a problem.  If it means that dummy had xxx there was just a forced play, that's another story.

From Law 57C1:
A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play.

We need to know if Declarer ever ordered card(s) played from Dummy (or himself physically played such cards)

Quote

we need to know...etc

Unfortunately, when you are faced to your questions and must answer, you cannot ask anyone to tell you if declarer named dummy's cards or not...

[aguahombre]

bali 2, on Nov 11 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

mycroft, on Nov 10 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

According to the question, however, "in dummy a heart" at trick 3.  If that means that declarer called a heart from dummy, then there's a problem.  If it means that dummy had xxx there was just a forced play, that's another story.

From Law 57C1:
A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play.

We need to know if Declarer ever ordered card(s) played from Dummy (or himself physically played such cards)

Quote

we need to know...etc

Unfortunately, when you are faced to your questions and must answer, you cannot ask anyone to tell you if declarer named dummy's cards or not...

do you have a lot of practice making decisions without the facts? You should run for office.

[mycroft]

Well, when I wrote my Tournament Assistant exam for the ACBL, one of the reasons my entry was way too many pages long was that in situations where I didn't believe I had all the facts, I gave alternative rulings depending on the answer to the questions I thought I needed answered. So, even when it's sitting on the table, you can do this.

And who knows - the correct answer might have been "insufficient information to answer the question. Keep asking questions." It's not like that never happens IRL.

[blackshoe]

I wonder how your answers were graded?

[bali 2]

Thank you mycroft for your suggestion, which I think is a good idea when one needs some info, or doesn't understand all the meanings of the question. I will remember you when I'll be soon in front of such a question !!

[axman]

mycroft, on Nov 10 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

Like many, I would return the question 'missing information'. Did South play a card from Dummy at trick 2? Did Dummy play a card from Dummy? What did East do?

According to the question, however, "in dummy a heart" at trick 3. If that means that declarer called a heart from dummy, then there's a problem. If it means that dummy had xxx there was just a forced play, that's another story.

If South just forgot when he was, looked down at the H5 and thought it was trick 2, having played from dummy, then the answer applies as stated (and yes, is harsh. But how often do you leave a card up to think and not turn it down, then finish thinking and play to trick two without turning T1 down, *and* think that you played out of turn afterward?)

Vampyr has my statement, which is "yeah, it's harsh, but it never happens." I've had one deficient trick in 10 years of directing (several defective tricks, but that's a card stuck or a fifth card played to the trick). Of course, revoking in a grand is a good way to let them make it off the Ace of trump, this is another way; which one's more common, you think?

A data point, at my table there have been 10+ defective tricks this year.

[bluejak]

Well, if you want a datapoint, at my table there have been none in the last three years. But then, I only play five or six times a week.

[blackshoe]

Obviously, David doesn't play enough.

I don't play enough, either, but my experience over the past year or so is somewhere between the two. Perhaps 2 or 3 defective tricks. Plus several "almosts" caught only because at least one player at the table was awake.

[bluejak]

Oh, lots of almosts!