BBO Discussion Forums: Law 67 - Defective Trick - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Law 67 - Defective Trick

#21 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2011-May-18, 09:50

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 09:20, said:

That is where Law 67B could be unfortunate in that a reader who doesn't understand this law mistakenly concentrates on the question how the situation arose rather than on the situation itself.

This is you explaining how you currently interpret the present law, rather than listening to us telling you we don't want it to do that.
0

#22 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2011-May-18, 09:55

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 09:20, said:

How?

I gave two examples in one of my posts that you didn't read. But to help you, here they are again. (1) You put your cards face down on the table and pick them up with one of the played cards. (2) Dummy fails to place the played card in the played position. Other examples have bene given.

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 09:20, said:

Sure we have. See for instance Law 66D

It does not deal with most of the situations in the proposed new law I gave a detailed proposed text for dealing with violations of Law 65.
0

#23 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2011-May-18, 10:00

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 09:20, said:

This is not a case for Law 67

Again, this is you explaining how you currently interpret Law 67, rather than listening to us telling you that we would like this to be a case that Law 67 ought to deal with.

This is the "Changing Laws and Regulations" group. We have a thread here because we do not like how you interpret Law 67. We want it to be different. So do not keep coming back telling us "Law 67 is like this". We do not want it to be like that.

(We don't even agree it is like you say it is. But since it is clearly deficient, we may as well say how we would like to be, and then rewrite it to make sure it is like that).
0

#24 User is offline   alphatango 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 2010-November-06
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2011-May-18, 10:51

EDIT: I forgot to refresh the page before I posted, so I wrote the following without seeing posts in this thread from #17 onwards. Apologies if I am repeating things that have already been said.

* * *

In responding to you, pran, I do want to note that you began your response to my OP with "Without having scrutinized this suggestion too carefully", and your response to iviehoff with "so many words which I could not bother to study". I would simply point out that a sensible debate may be more likely if you care to read and try to understand posts written by other people, even if they are somewhat lengthy. We might surprise you with a reasonable argument or two. :P


View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 07:18, said:

What is the real problem?
Not the number of tricks played and which side won each of them, this has already been agreed upon.

The real problem is that when a certain number of tricks are still to be played a player holds either too few or too many cards in his hand. That is an irregularity preventing "normal" play on these remaining tricks.


I think this is the root of the difference of opinion. In my opinion, an ostensibly completed bridge trick should consist of exactly four cards, of which exactly one has been contributed by each player; for it to be otherwise is an irregularity, and is "the real problem". A failure to hold the right number of cards is a common consequence, but that is something to be dealt with when we construct a sensible rectification. In other words, I do not care if North has ten cards in his hand with ten tricks yet to be played -- if he played two cards to trick 1 and no cards at all to trick 3, I think there is a problem.



* * *

I concur with most of iviehoff's posts at #11 and #14. I am not quite sure how I feel about the proposed extensions to L65 yet; on the face of it, they are sensible specifications of what should happen, but I will need to think about it a little more.

View Postiviehoff, on 2011-May-18, 04:56, said:

Actually, I think that the first words of 67A are a perfectly good definition of defective trick. "When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick..."
Actually, they are something better than a definition of a defective trick, they are description of the situation in which Law 67A applies. This is what we want most of all for a law, a description of the circumstances in which you apply that law.


Indeed. I more or less reached that conclusion myself, so in the actual draft of a new L67 (in my OP), you will notice that this wording is retained -- almost. The change I made was to consider a trick defective only when the player's side has played to the next trick. I'm not sure I like this now; I may prefer the current wording. At the time, I was thinking of something like the following:


South is declaring a spade contract, and leads the HK; West covers with the HA, North follows with the H3, and East pauses to consider ruffing with a worthless trump. Playing quickly, and assuming that the HA was holding, South, West and North all turn their cards and West leads to the next trick. Now everybody catches on and calls the director. What should happen? We require East to play a legal card to the HK-A-3, obviously, but what next?

Well, who is at fault? West, clearly, for he didn't wait for the trick to be complete before playing to the next one. (North and South to a much lesser extent for turning their cards early.) So it seems OK to apply the L67B rectification.

Now suppose the trick, beginning with South, was HA-2-3-(no card). Now it feels like it is South who is primarily at fault when he leads to the next trick, with East-west essentially not at fault (yet). So I think we should require East to contribute a card to the heart trick. If he discards, South's next lead stands. If he ruffs, South has now led out of turn and the defenders have the usual options.

But if West plays to South's lead, then East-West are back to being at fault, so we hit them with 67B.


Is that sensible? If not, what should we be doing? And what about the case where the trick proceeds:

South HA, West H2, North H3, East H4; South HK...

West: "Didn't you already play the H4 a couple of tricks back?"
East: "Oops, I suppose I did."
Director: "Well, you didn't actually contribute a card to the previous trick, so please face a card you could legally have played."
East chooses a trump. Now what do we want to happen?


* * *


Finally, a less-related comment.

View Postaxman, on 2011-May-17, 14:13, said:

Theoretically, in the event that you construct satisfactory defective trick law [DTL], even good DTL, and were to displace the passage that occupies L67 the result would not be any more satisfactory than had you done nothing.

The reason is that there are upwards of 70000 issues concerning how L67 interacts with the remaining body of law. Issues being inconsistencies, conflicts, and such, which exist because of the way the remaining body of law was constructed and would not take into account the 'improvements' of the substituted passages.


First, that is not a sufficiently good reason to give up on trying to improve the law. Second, I would be interested in your list of the first 70000 such issues. I would settle for, say, the top 10.

axman said:

What you have to keep in mind is the importance of being consistent throughout the law and as such it is necessary to first know the definition of bridge. This is not an easy thing to know and from what you have written it suggests that you do not yet know what it is.


I appreciate that you wrote your words as encouragement and in good faith. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could (a) show at least a tenuous connection between my words and the idea that I do not "know the definition of bridge"; (b) contribute something constructive by, for example, identifying where you believe either the current law or the proposal is flawed.
0

#25 User is offline   axman 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 2009-July-29
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-May-18, 12:58

View Postalphatango, on 2011-May-18, 10:51, said:




* * *


Finally, a less-related comment.



First, that is not a sufficiently good reason to give up on trying to improve the law. Second, I would be interested in your list of the first 70000 such issues. I would settle for, say, the top 10.



I appreciate that you wrote your words as encouragement and in good faith. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could (a) show at least a tenuous connection between my words and the idea that I do not "know the definition of bridge"; (b) contribute something constructive by, for example, identifying where you believe either the current law or the proposal is flawed.


I was attempting to set you on a course that would minimize the amount of backtracking. I have walked the path you are doing now. On May 30,1997 I was on the worse end of two mangled L25 rulings [though I believe there is no good end to a bad ruling] and in June I decided that a lot of my irritation lie in the construction of law and that I could do a better job at it; no, not merely better but a good job. I had ‘insights’ and dug right in. after a day and a half I discovered that I had failed- and miserably. This discovery came when I went to insert L25 into the book and it did not fit. Anyway, I realized the source of my failure to be the fact that I did not know what bridge is. You see, even if you don’t see, is that the law must be whole and to be whole no passage can be permitted to conflict with the synthesis. I spent a year listening, interviewing, studying rulings, studying TFLB in my attempt to distill what bridge is- before I went about my L25 project.

As I said originally ‘Otherwise, without a satisfactory definition you will be ill placed to know when you are on target and when you are not.’ So, had you known what bridge is you would have started there and not with:

‘To start with, the term "defective trick" should be defined.’

With regard to enumerating the issues, it is not my inclination to undertake several hundred thousand pages of work without compensation. I would need $100US per hour in advance and I type about 5 words per minute.

But to give you an idea of what I meant. In the fall of 1996 I asked a member of the ACBLLC [who happened to live down the street] as to why [as in, is it an appropriate remedy?] when correcting an old defective trick missing a card that when the player has a card of the suit [as in could have followed suit] he gets no revoke penalty while a player who was dealt a void would always be penalized for a revoke. He wouldn’t touch it. But he suggested I discuss it with blml. Everyone on blml who had something to say told me that I was quite wrong headed about it.
0

#26 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-May-18, 14:31

View Postaxman, on 2011-May-18, 12:58, said:

But to give you an idea of what I meant. In the fall of 1996 I asked a member of the ACBLLC [who happened to live down the street] as to why [as in, is it an appropriate remedy?] when correcting an old defective trick missing a card that when the player has a card of the suit [as in could have followed suit] he gets no revoke penalty while a player who was dealt a void would always be penalized for a revoke. He wouldn’t touch it. But he suggested I discuss it with blml. Everyone on blml who had something to say told me that I was quite wrong headed about it.

That was indeed the law in 1996, it was changed with the 2007 revision. I have no special knowledge on the reason for this change; my best guess is that it was made in order to bring Law 67B1{a} in agreement with the definition of revoke (Law 61A):

Definition of Revoke
Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)


It is in my opinion quite obvious that complete failure to play a card to a trick is a revoke according to this definition.
0

#27 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,290
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-May-18, 15:27

The part you have bolded applies "when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity". It follows then that the bolded failure, when it occurs in situations other than such exercising, does not constitute a revoke.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#28 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-May-18, 16:47

View Postblackshoe, on 2011-May-18, 15:27, said:

The part you have bolded applies "when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity". It follows then that the bolded failure, when it occurs in situations other than such exercising, does not constitute a revoke.

Doubt about this may have existed before 2007. With the 2007 revision of Law 67B1{a} it should be clear that failure to lead or play a card to a trick (so that the trick has become defective) does indeed constitute a revoke.

The quoted law can be split into a list as follows:
Definition of Revoke
  • Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44, or
  • Failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit
    • required by law, or
    • specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity
constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

And I believe this is the correct way of reading that law.
0

#29 User is offline   axman 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 2009-July-29
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-May-18, 18:06

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 16:47, said:

Doubt about this may have existed before 2007. With the 2007 revision of Law 67B1{a} it should be clear that failure to lead or play a card to a trick (so that the trick has become defective) does indeed constitute a revoke.

The quoted law can be split into a list as follows:
Definition of Revoke
  • Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44, or
  • Failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit
    • required by law, or
    • specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity
constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

And I believe this is the correct way of reading that law.



THe punctuation makes it clear that the above is not the proper parsing [as in you have added a comma which changes the parsing to be as you purport]

the accurate parsing is

  • Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44, or
  • Failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit
    • required by law when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, or,
    • specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity
constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

Saying nothing as to the efficacy of the source text.
0

#30 User is offline   mjj29 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 2009-July-11

Posted 2011-May-18, 18:26

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 09:04, said:

A separate issue is of course if one wants to change the intention of this law, but I have noticed little (if any at all) arguments for such change.

We are, indeed, arguing for a change to the intention of this law (or, at least, what you believe the intention to be).

The reason for this is that where a card has been played to a trick and does not appear amongst the quitted tricks for any reason at all then (subject to the director satisfying himself of the facts - which we believe will be the majority of the time) it seems most sensible to merely place it back where it belongs and get on with proceedings. This is at odds with what you say the laws require and so we want to change it.

In fact we believe this is already the correct (or at least a reasonable) approach to take, but obviously not everyone does, so this is an attempt to rewrite the law to make it clear that this is the (new) intention.
0

#31 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-May-19, 03:51

View Postmjj29, on 2011-May-18, 18:26, said:

We are, indeed, arguing for a change to the intention of this law (or, at least, what you believe the intention to be).

The reason for this is that where a card has been played to a trick and does not appear amongst the quitted tricks for any reason at all then (subject to the director satisfying himself of the facts - which we believe will be the majority of the time) it seems most sensible to merely place it back where it belongs and get on with proceedings. This is at odds with what you say the laws require and so we want to change it.

In fact we believe this is already the correct (or at least a reasonable) approach to take, but obviously not everyone does, so this is an attempt to rewrite the law to make it clear that this is the (new) intention.

Correct, and it is imperative that such a proposed new law includes precise provisions on how to handle the situation when the played and returned card has been played also a second time (to a later trick).

Has anybody so far given any serious attention to that situation? If so I must have completely overlooked it.
0

#32 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-May-19, 07:50

View Postpran, on 2011-May-18, 09:04, said:

And I have pointed out the correct procedure for anybody who wants to suggest changes to the laws, they should submit their suggestion through their national authority.

I don't understand why you felt it necessary to say this even once, let alone twice. If someone is considering submitting such a proposal, it seems to me quite sensible to discuss it with others beforehand. It seems even more sensible to do so in a forum whose stated purpose is the discussion of such proposals.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#33 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-May-19, 08:40

View Postgnasher, on 2011-May-19, 07:50, said:

I don't understand why you felt it necessary to say this even once, let alone twice. If someone is considering submitting such a proposal, it seems to me quite sensible to discuss it with others beforehand. It seems even more sensible to do so in a forum whose stated purpose is the discussion of such proposals.

For that matter, if you discuss it here, and someone else likes the proposal, perhaps that person will propose it, yes?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#34 User is offline   mjj29 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 2009-July-11

Posted 2011-May-19, 10:27

View Postpran, on 2011-May-19, 03:51, said:

Correct, and it is imperative that such a proposed new law includes precise provisions on how to handle the situation when the played and returned card has been played also a second time (to a later trick).

Has anybody so far given any serious attention to that situation? If so I must have completely overlooked it.


View Postiviehoff, on 2011-May-18, 04:56, said:

D: If the card is found to have been played a second time, or on subsequent occasions, it shall be deemed not to have been played other than when it was first played, and it shall be restored to its correct place among the played cards in accordance with Law 65. Law 67 applies to any tricks where the card was played subsequent to when it was first played. For avoidance of doubt, in the event that Law 67B is applicable, this does not change the ownership of the trick, except as provided for in the application of the revoke penalties to the trick under Law 67B1. In the event that the card played a second time is one of two cards contributed to that trick by the player, Law 67B1 shall apply except that the player need not contribute an additional card to the trick. For avoidance of doubt, if the application of the revoke penalty does not do equity, Law 64C shall apply.

0

#35 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-May-19, 10:58

View Postmjj29, on 2011-May-19, 10:27, said:

iviehoff said:

D: If the card is found to have been played a second time, or on subsequent occasions, it shall be deemed not to have been played other than when it was first played, and it shall be restored to its correct place among the played cards in accordance with Law 65. Law 67 applies to any tricks where the card was played subsequent to when it was first played. For avoidance of doubt, in the event that Law 67B is applicable, this does not change the ownership of the trick, except as provided for in the application of the revoke penalties to the trick under Law 67B1. In the event that the card played a second time is one of two cards contributed to that trick by the player, Law 67B1 shall apply except that the player need not contribute an additional card to the trick. For avoidance of doubt, if the application of the revoke penalty does not do equity, Law 64C shall apply.


??????????????????? :o
0

#36 User is offline   axman 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 2009-July-29
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-May-19, 11:11

View Postpran, on 2011-May-19, 03:51, said:

Correct, and it is imperative that such a proposed new law includes precise provisions on how to handle the situation when the played and returned card has been played also a second time (to a later trick).

Has anybody so far given any serious attention to that situation? If so I must have completely overlooked it.


I have, some ten years ago.
0

#37 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-May-19, 15:54

View Postaxman, on 2011-May-18, 18:06, said:

THe punctuation makes it clear that the above is not the proper parsing [as in you have added a comma which changes the parsing to be as you purport]

the accurate parsing is

  • Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44, or
  • Failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit
    • required by law when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, or,
    • specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity
constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply see Law 59.)

Saying nothing as to the efficacy of the source text.


It is the opponent to an offender that in certain cases may exercise options after an irregularity, not the law.

A statement like required by law when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity is meaningless.

(required by law without any limitation is both sufficient and correct)
0

#38 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,290
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-May-19, 15:58

No, it is not. It means exactly what it says.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#39 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2011-May-19, 16:29

View Postblackshoe, on 2011-May-19, 15:58, said:

No, it is not. It means exactly what it says.

Sure it does, the question is: What does it really say?

Is "required by law" only appliccable when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity, and who is it that in case excersises such option?

Is for instance failure to lead a major penalty card not a revoke because the player has no option? (Take a look at Law 64B3!)

I must maintain that failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law is a revoke regardless of this failure being associated with an irregularity in any way.

(Obviously an offending side must obey, when able, a choice among options available to, and specified by the non-offending side after an irregularity just as if the particular choice in the situation had been directly required by law.)
0

#40 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,290
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-May-19, 22:27

Ordinarily, when leading, one can lead whatever one likes. However, there are certain situations in which one must lead a particular card (a major penalty card, for example) willy-nilly, and certain situations in which one must lead a particular suit (e.g., when partner has a penalty card and declarer exercises an option under Law 26). Failure to lead such a card when able to do so is a revoke. Failure to follow suit when able to do so is a revoke. Failure to play a card when either the law or an opponent, in exercising an option, requires it is a revoke.

What the hell are we arguing about anyway? I've forgotten. :huh:
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users