[lamford]

pran, on 2012-October-03, 14:23, said:

My personal understanding of the laws is that WBFLC in Law 45D thinks of both sides having played to the next trick in a regular way, i.e. with a lead and a subsequent play as described in Law 44 (without any irregularity).

I think you are right, and the TD and eminent AC were wrong in this case. And yet another example of the Laws being incomplete. No surprise there, as the definition of "trick" is wrong in the definitions at the front.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-October-03, 11:15, said:

Yes, I would think a fifth card was contributed to the trick. Law 45E1 specifically talks about "a fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender", so presumably that is something which can happen. Even the definition of "trick" you quote alludes to the possibility of a trick being composed of some number of cards other than four, so I don't understand your objection to this.

My objection was that the definition of "trick" specifies that the cards are played in rotation. That is just an error and should read "usually in rotation".

[lamford]

pran, on 2012-October-03, 14:58, said:

If instead West had just objected to the "lead" from Dummy with a statement like "it is my lead" then there would not have been any problem in correcting the incorrect play by Dummy in the last trick.

He does better by playing his other spade on declarer's call of the second top spade from dummy. Now both sides have contributed to the next trick, in a legal way, and he has condoned the lead out of turn, but gets to keep the spade trick he won. It is never wrong to take advantage of an opponent's irregularity, although I now see that mamos suggests it is sharp practice.

Interestingly, if he leads the ace of diamonds after declarer called for the second top spade, then he has an unestablished revoke (because he has now condoned the lead out of turn) and a major penalty card, but gets to keep his previous trick! Although, according to pran's understanding, both sides have not yet played to the next trick.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-October-04, 03:59, said:

My objection was that the definition of "trick" specifies that the cards are played in rotation. That is just an error and should read "usually in rotation".

I don't think it does. Both "four cards" and "in rotation" come after "unless flawed".

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-October-03, 14:23, said:

My personal understanding of the laws is that WBFLC in Law 45D thinks of both sides having played to the next trick in a regular way, i.e. with a lead and a subsequent play as described in Law 44 (without any irregularity).

On what basis did you come to that personal understanding? If the WBFLC really thinks that, why hasn't it issued one of its minutes to make it clear?

It seems to me just as logical that the key point about the definition of the cut-off point is that it is the point when both sides have made some action beyond the trick where the irregularity occurred, even if that action is irregular.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-October-04, 04:32, said:

I don't think it does. Both "four cards" and "in rotation" come after "unless flawed".

It defines a trick as: "the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead". The only flaw permitted is not to be composed of four cards. The cards need to be contributed by each player in rotation regardless of how many there are.

If it said: "the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, unless flawed composed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead", then I would agree with you.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2012-October-04, 05:57, said:

It defines a trick as: "the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead". The only flaw permitted is not to be composed of four cards. The cards need to be contributed by each player in rotation regardless of how many there are.

If it said: "the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, unless flawed composed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead", then I would agree with you.

Perhaps someone should ask Grattan to parse this definition for us - or to present the question to the LC.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-04, 07:57, said:

Perhaps someone should ask Grattan to parse this definition for us - or to present the question to the LC.

I think we know what the definition of "trick" is, and the simplest is to put "usually" before "in rotation". There are far more important things wrong with the Laws than a slight miswording in the definitions! It is not always "one contributed by each player" either. Sometimes it is none and sometimes two or more!

[campboy]

I don't think there is a miswording. I think you are misparsing the definition.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2012-October-04, 08:06, said:

I think we know what the definition of "trick" is…

Apparently we don't, or were the folks arguing about it just doing so for the Hell of it?

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-October-04, 08:37, said:

I don't think there is a miswording. I think you are misparsing the definition.

So, you would interpret: "A football team, composed unless somone has been red-carded of eleven players, three of whom can be substituted in the game ..." to mean that a team which has had a player sent off is not necessarily allowed three substitutions?

[pran]

pran, on 2012-October-03, 14:23, said:

My personal understanding of the laws is that WBFLC in Law 45D thinks of both sides having played to the next trick in a regular way, i.e. with a lead and a subsequent play as described in Law 44 (without any irregularity).

iviehoff, on 2012-October-04, 05:44, said:

On what basis did you come to that personal understanding? If the WBFLC really thinks that, why hasn't it issued one of its minutes to make it clear?

It seems to me just as logical that the key point about the definition of the cut-off point is that it is the point when both sides have made some action beyond the trick where the irregularity occurred, even if that action is irregular.

I do not know if there has been any minute on the matter, I don't believe there is. And I think this is simply because the question has never been raised.

My personal understanding is the result of working with the laws since before 1980 and from knowledge of how the laws have developed since around 1930.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-October-04, 10:48, said:

I do not know if there has been any minute on the matter, I don't believe there is. And I think this is simply because the question has never been raised.

OK, there is no established position, and I'll put it on my list of difficult points in the laws then.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-October-04, 09:29, said:

So, you would interpret: "A football team, composed unless somone has been red-carded of eleven players, three of whom can be substituted in the game ..." to mean that a team which has had a player sent off is not necessarily allowed three substitutions?

I would interpret that sentence fragment as saying that if no-one has been red-carded there will be 11 players, 3 of whom can be substituted. It sounds like there are 3 specified substitutable players, though I know that is not the actual rule. It does not say whether a red card changes the number of players, the number which can be substituted, or both. Again I can fill in the gaps from my knowledge of the rules.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-October-04, 08:06, said:

I think we know what the definition of "trick" is, and the simplest is to put "usually" before "in rotation".

Many irregularities result in things not strictly meeting their normal definitions. I think the Laws can be understood as if they had such qualifiers everywhere that it's necessary to allow the laws on infractions to be interpreted reasonably.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-04, 21:25, said:

Many irregularities result in things not strictly meeting their normal definitions. I think the Laws can be understood as if they had such qualifiers everywhere that it's necessary to allow the laws on infractions to be interpreted reasonably.

I agree, and I intepret "both sides play to the next trick" as meaning "both sides play to the next trick in a normal way", much as pran says. But several TDs, including the ones in this case, are adopting a less logical approach.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-04, 08:38, said:

Apparently we don't, or were the folks arguing about it just doing so for the Hell of it?

I think they are arguing for the hell of it, trying to make this BLML. That is why I am steering clear of this frankly unnecessary argument, which does not improve people's ability to give rulings, which is the main aim of these forums, at least the first three.

[c_corgi]

L45D allows the card declarer called from dummy to be played, thereby creating a sensible bridge result rather than following a potentially nonsensical line. It imposes an arbitrary limit of both sides playing to the next trick as the point where it may become impractical/undesirable to unwind the play. If it is unclear from the laws whether both sides have played to the next trick, but the card which may have met this criterion did not advance play in any meaningful way (as here) it seems obvious to err on the side of unwinding the play so that the correct card is played.

[dwar0123]

c_corgi, on 2012-October-05, 07:25, said:

L45D allows the card declarer called from dummy to be played, thereby creating a sensible bridge result rather than following a potentially nonsensical line. It imposes an arbitrary limit of both sides playing to the next trick as the point where it may become impractical/undesirable to unwind the play. If it is unclear from the laws whether both sides have played to the next trick, but the card which may have met this criterion did not advance play in any meaningful way (as here) it seems obvious to err on the side of unwinding the play so that the correct card is played.

Good lord, hope this is true, cause reading this thread I was beginning to think the laws were nuts and no one was noticing.

[blackshoe]

In spite of the last two posts, I have to say I agree with the TD and AC that dummy's placing the wrong card in the played position cannot be changed [Law 45D]. I share mamos' concerns, but I don't see that making any difference to what the law says.