[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-December-30, 09:52, said:

You should have stopped right there .

Just for curiosity I looked up the Norwegian translation and found (word for word translation back to English - beginning with "deems"-):
"It is ruled that the player has revoked in the defective trick".

[blackshoe]

Hm. Translation is hard?

[axman]

pran, on 2017-December-29, 18:52, said:

This distinction is immaterial, the result is the same whichever way you look at the situation.

But Each player is required by Law (44) to play a card at his turn to play, and law 61 doesn't limit "card or suit required by law" to rectification situations only.

So the use of the word "deemed" in Law 67 does IMHO not imply that the failure to play a card to a trick was not a revoke.
I challenge those who argue that it does to come up with an alternative text for the situation where it indeed is a revoke? Without any such alternative text I argue that the word "deem" means just that.

(Not that it makes any real difference.)

I am not inclined to figure out the antecedents- but it does appear that there are self contradictions (above).

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-December-29, 18:52, said:

This distinction is immaterial, the result is the same whichever way you look at the situation.

But Each player is required by Law (44) to play a card at his turn to play, and law 61 doesn't limit "card or suit required by law" to rectification situations only.

So you're saying that "a card or suit required by law" in the revoke definition refers to the normal play of cards, not something more specific like penalty cards? This phrase is used after "failure to lead or play" -- so does that mean if it's your lead, but you just sit there like a lump, you're revoking?

I also just reread it and the part about the opponent specifying a suit is a separate case: "or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity".

If "required by law" referred to normal play, it seems like all the other verbiage would be totally redundant. After all, following suit is required by law, so failure to do so would constitute failing to play a suit required by law.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-December-31, 11:56, said:

So you're saying that "a card or suit required by law" in the revoke definition refers to the normal play of cards, not something more specific like penalty cards? This phrase is used after "failure to lead or play" -- so does that mean if it's your lead, but you just sit there like a lump, you're revoking?

I also just reread it and the part about the opponent specifying a suit is a separate case: "or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity".

If "required by law" referred to normal play, it seems like all the other verbiage would be totally redundant. After all, following suit is required by law, so failure to do so would constitute failing to play a suit required by law.

Of course.
"failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law" includes the normal play of cards "as required by Law 44".

And there are many examples of redundancy in the laws (more or less overlapping) not that they should cause any difficulty.

[barmar]

And what is "when able" supposed to mean? Under what situation would you not be able to play a card? There are just so many extra words there that I have to think they were trying to say something more specific. One redundancy can be ignored, but it's something like four.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-January-02, 10:22, said:

And what is "when able" supposed to mean? Under what situation would you not be able to play a card? There are just so many extra words there that I have to think they were trying to say something more specific. One redundancy can be ignored, but it's something like four.

Obviously I am not able to play a card in a particular suit unless I have a card in that suit available. And failure to play such a card (required by law) when able is a clear revoke regardless of the circumstances.

Law 44 said:

C. Requirement to Follow Suit
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.
D. Inability to Follow Suit
If unable to follow suit, a player may play any card (unless he is subject to restriction after an irregularity committed by his side).

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-January-03, 05:36, said:

Obviously I am not able to play a card in a particular suit unless I have a card in that suit available. And failure to play such a card (required by law) when able is a clear revoke regardless of the circumstances.

"that suit" -- so now you're back to agreeing with me that it's talking about the specific card or suit required in certain circumstances (such as declarer exercising a require/prohibit option), not just any legal card.

By your logic, the definition of revoke could be reduced to just "Playing an illegal card", perhaps followed by "such as ..." and a list of the common failures (not following suit when able, not playing a PC when required, not obeying a require/prohibit option, etc.).

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-January-03, 09:53, said:

"that suit" -- so now you're back to agreeing with me that it's talking about the specific card or suit required in certain circumstances (such as declarer exercising a require/prohibit option), not just any legal card.

By your logic, the definition of revoke could be reduced to just "Playing an illegal card", perhaps followed by "such as ..." and a list of the common failures (not following suit when able, not playing a PC when required, not obeying a require/prohibit option, etc.).

And your point is ???

Law 61A is pretty clear to me as it is.
In fact I expect it to be pretty clear to any qualified Director reading it once they realize that revoke is more than just not following suit.
(Those who don't want to understand are of course a different kind of people.)

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-January-03, 11:15, said:

And your point is ???

Maybe it doesn't really make a difference. If the unplayed card that caused the defective trick fits the definition of a revoke by itself, then the law that tells us to deem it a revoke is also redundant (you don't need to deem something that's self-evident), but so what? Whichever law we use to determine that it's a revoke, we end up in the revoke laws and the right thing happens.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2018-January-04, 09:35, said:

Maybe it doesn't really make a difference. If the unplayed card that caused the defective trick fits the definition of a revoke by itself, then the law that tells us to deem it a revoke is also redundant (you don't need to deem something that's self-evident), but so what? Whichever law we use to determine that it's a revoke, we end up in the revoke laws and the right thing happens.

Well the law may be redundant, but it is still a very useful reminder that it applies in this situation.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2018-January-05, 06:47, said:

Well the law may be redundant, but it is still a very useful reminder that it applies in this situation.

I don't mind the reminder. But they could have said something like "Since the defective trick constitutes a revoke, Law <whatever> applies." This could even be in a footnote. The use of the word "deem" implies that it is not inherently a revoke, but we must treat it as one.