dburn, on 2011-May-20, 07:41, said:
We have both already quoted the opening words of Law 67. These demonstrate to our satisfaction the obvious fact that a defective trick exists "when a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick". If you do not share our opinion, so be it.
Moreover, these words do not support the bluejak view that a defective trick is a trick that no longer "contains" four cards. No other words in the Laws support this view either, for the obvious reason that the view is wrong.
A card played to trick four should if possible, but purely for the sake of compliance with Law 65C, be placed among the owner's played cards somewhere between the card he played to the third trick and the card he played to the fifth trick. It cannot be played to trick nine because it is not eligible for play to trick nine, having already been played to trick four. The defective trick nine must be dealt with in accordance with Law 67.
This, in answer to Blue Uriah above, renders the Myles Coup illegal, and pran is quite correct when he says that the trick on which the coup is attempted should be dealt with under Law 67. If he or bluejak continues to believe, however, that the trick from which the card was withdrawn in order to perform the coup has become defective, then he or bluejak continues to be in error.
Ok, it has taken a while but burn has produced evidence that neither he nor I know what a defective trick is.
To recap
>L67A has been pointed at- yet it speaks of errors but not of defective tricks;
>L67B has been pointed at which has the form, if A or B exists then C exists, however, there is no C=?????
And
Burn has authored a definition:
“As to axman's musings: I (and gordontd) know what a defective trick is. It is a trick to which at least one player has failed to contribute exactly one card. We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick.”
Now, as evidence of proof you that you do not know what a defective trick is it is noted that you have stated without reservation in answer to the query of:
So, all of you who know what a defective trick is, answer this: contestant B plays card X to T4; then at T9 he plays card X [to which the other three also play exactly one card]. Is T9 defective? And why?
quote
“We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick.”
end
Now, due to the fact that a player has played such a card, there is the supposition (is there not?): > that the required action is to move card X from T9 to T4 [whether X was eligible or not eligible, it in fact found its way to T9] to T4 and having done so- then what?.
And, what if I were to have you know that when playing to T4 player B contributed card X; he then called the TD to inform him that card X was a revoke; the TD then made X a PC and B then played card Y to T4. And since the partner of B won T4 the opponent exercised the PC right to deny the lead of the PC suit whereby the TD required X to go back in the hand- where at T9 it was then played.
So the moment of truth has arrived. There are irreconcilable differences between two burnian assertions of fact: [a] that T9 prior to moving X to T4 is defective and [b] T9 can never be defective since X could and was played legally to it [a la L44-8].
Burn may well say that I deceived him. Yet, I did no such thing. It was burn that deceived himself into believing that he knew something which I had told him that he could not know from TFLB and would not know even if he authored the definition of defective trick. I knew so because his assertions as to what TFLB says suggested that he also did not understand the subject matter sufficiently. The fact is that he believed that he had sufficient facts to assert his statement was true- even when it may not have been true.
I am not trying to be difficult with burn, nor am I trying to be hard on him as much as may seem so. I have previously asserted that burn is the smartest of the lot and the best in the smithing of words. But, how would burn put it- bilge emanates from they who don’t fully grasp the whole. As I told the gentleman in the parallel thread in the other forum- even should he create a perfect L67 we will not be any closer to a better lawbook- because he does not yet understand the whole. My point is that as burn is the best and the brightest, yet as he does not yet understand the whole, so, is it not so difficult to believe that the lawmakers may be of lesser ilk when they wrote TFLB and thus left something out?
Help
