BBO Discussion Forums: one of dummy's cards is hidden - BBO Discussion Forums

This happens quite often.

6♥/S on a diamond lead.
Dummy spreads 12 cards including a singleton diamond.
3rd hand wins the ♦A from AQxx and leads something else.

Declarer has the rest.
At some stage (does it matter when?) dummy's hidden ♦K makes an appearance.

Is is +1430 or -100?

Can’t be answered that simple. Read Law 14B. The card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient hand. If it wasn’t played when diamonds were led, is’s an established revoke, otherwise te result stands.
An established revoke by the dummy doesn’t carry an automatic trick adjustment(Law 64B4), but if the NOS is damaged by the revoke, the director should award an adjusted score.
It doesn’t matter when the missing card is discovered or were it was hiding, in the hand, the board or somewhere else.

sanst, on 2023-March-15, 02:42, said:

Assume no revoke.
That is, declarer draws trumps and claims 12 top tricks, which may - or may not - include the emerging ♦K.

In addition to what sanst says about Law 14 (and potentially 64B), in the ACBL at least, our style is to protect the defence from these kinds of mistakes. So if it were the ♦Q that got found, say, we'd allow RHO to cash the K after the A and set the contract. In other words, at least here, "everyone is responsible for dummy" is another one of those folk legends that has incomplete basis in Law.

This would also apply in the OPs case where RHO had ♦AQxx (and declarer doesn't have a singleton) - if dummy was laid out correctly, the defender would never have played the A, and the defence is given two tricks.

Dummy has violated Law 41D, and induced a misplay from the defence from the "miscommunication". It's not 47E2b (because not a) but we treat it the same way. A technical reading of 12C1a might disallow it as well, but shouldn't, in my view (and in the ACBL's view) [Edit: but 12A1 may.]

Y[RA's]MMV. Check with them.

Two of my "firsts" came from this:

• My first appeal (okay, the first appeal where I was the table director, I gave the DIC's ruling) was on a mislaid dummy where, if all cards had been shown, the "zero%" line of play the life novice defenders took would have been obviously zero % even to that defender;
  
• Declarer, in 6♥, ruffed the opening spade lead, and in an 11 card fit off the KQ, called for the trump ace. When pulling that card out, the ♠A was discovered behind. Yes, the KQ crashed, and declarer made 7. Yes, revoke, yes, established, no penalty for failure to play a "faced" card, equity is "win the ♠A, play the ♥A, crash the KQ, make 7", there's nothing the defence can be protected from. At least 3 tables in the session called me over to be shown the Law.

Having said all of that (especially the "isn't clear from the Laws" bit), it's time for another email to the Committee to clarify what happens if dummy does violate 41D.

mycroft, on 2023-March-15, 08:57, said:

Interesting, I had not spotted this hole in the Laws before.

I never liked the way Law 12A is written, because it first sets the bar at "when these laws empower him to do so" but then goes on to say this includes (?) situations where the Law does not provide rectification. Which is sort of a logical short-circuit, but nevertheless I take it as allowing me to award an adjusted score here on the basis that 41D does not provide the rectification which I judge due (what else could 12A1 be intended to mean?).
So I will put it to my RA (thanks) but I know what I would do in the meantime (same as you).

mycroft, on 2023-March-15, 08:57, said:

Really! I have had a couple of rulings where a Director has "quoted" this. These Directors never carry law books.

I still remember one year (in a NAP qualifier, if I remember correctly), where they called the TD over after the play in 3♦ to complain that partner had put down a 12-card dummy - in fact, one of the trumps was completely covered by another.

I pointed out that if I knew I had had a 10-card trump suit instead of a 9-, I wouldn't have pulled the third round of trumps and would have made another trick. So the only one damaged was me. And the director[*] said "well, we don't protect *you* from your partner's dumb mistakes." Not that I expected they would, I was just pointing out that the opponents were definitely not damaged!

[*] who had a reputation for these kinds of phrasings of rulings. I miss him still, and wish I could pull off what he could sometimes.

As promised I put it to my RA, first response: no adjustment, "everyone is responsible for the dummy".
There are higher Oracles I could confront, but I think I'll leave it for now as there are bigger fish to fry (scoring app, screens online, comparable call...).

It seems the ACBL isn’t the only RA where you can’t be sure you’ll get correct answers to your questions.

blackshoe, on 2023-March-19, 23:45, said:

The undiscussed pandemic.

They might be right - in Italy.

I don't like it; especially if there is no consequence to the slam-makers. Learning that "accidents" can lead to 0% contracts making with the Law saying "all good" leads to more accidents. Not that anybody would do that on purpose, oh no. But it's another one of those convenient places where "not taking care" or "taking liberties with the Law" leads to all-upside (like my other bugbear about "run the diamonds").

So I'm happy that in the ACBL, we protect the defence from violations of 41D. I'm also interested to note RA-level (or at least "received wisdom" in different RAs) disagreements - given that that was one of the points I made to the LC in my submission (that this should be spelled out actually in the Law, one way or the other).

I just did what I should have done the first time: checked the Commentary. And it seems to be on the ACBL's side here (my emphasis):

Quote

But again, no specific "how do we handle it if dummy's presentation leads the defence into a misplay".

[Edit to add]Another quote from the commentary gets us a better idea of what the WBFLC wants us to do here (from "12A1 vs 12A2", again my emphasis):

Quote

mycroft, on 2023-March-20, 10:58, said:

I vaguely remembered that, thanks, and of course I agree anyway with your previous reasoning about why Declarer should not be allowed to keep this score.

I will put this on a back burner but not forget, soon we meet in Salsomaggiore and I'll try to figure out if there is a consensus.
In any case the gap in the Laws should be filled (and 12A rephrased a bit too).