[Coelacanth]

This really happened.

The opening lead was made, and the first three tricks were won by opening leader cashing A, K, A in quick succession. TD was summoned prior to trick 4.

Only at this point of the play did anyone notice or realize that dummy had not yet been faced. The player had followed suit with small cards to the first three tricks.

TD directed that dummy now be faced and play continued.

Anything more to do here? The wording of 41D ("dummy spreads his hand") is in the "does" category, so "establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized".

[barmar]

I think we apply Law 67 on Defective Tricks.

The first two tricks fall under 67B1, since both sides played to the next trick and the offender failed to play a card to the defective trick. Dummy should be spread and declarer should call legal cards from dummy for those two tricks. The law says "this card does not affect ownership of the trick", so none of these cards can win the trick even if they would have done so had they been played in proper sequence. Tricks 1 and 2 are also considered to be established revokes by declarer, causing trick transference according to Law 64A2.

Trick 3 falls under 67A1, since the defective trick was noticed before both sides played to trick 4. Declarer chooses a legal card for dummy to play to trick 3. I think this is allowed to win the trick.

It seems to me that if dummy's card to trick 3 would have changed what card third hand played, they should be allowed to change it (as they could if a play were withdrawn), but Law 67 doesn't say this.

Since Law 41D doesn't suggest penalty, I wouldn't worry too much about that law. Both sides should have noticed right away that no cards were being played from dummy, so they share blame.

[Coelacanth]

barmar, on 2026-April-29, 12:28, said:

I think we apply Law 67 on Defective Tricks.
...

Since Law 41D doesn't suggest penalty, I wouldn't worry too much about that law. Both sides should have noticed right away that no cards were being played from dummy, so they share blame.

I don't see any defective tricks here. Dummy's hand contributed a card to all three tricks. These are cards declarer did not name, but per 45D it is too late to change the first two of them. TD should have offered declarer's RHO the option to change her play to trick 3, but it's unlikely she would have done so.

I think your last sentence is spot on.

[pescetom]

Coelacanth, on 2026-April-29, 13:38, said:

I don't see any defective tricks here. Dummy's hand contributed a card to all three tricks. These are cards declarer did not name, but per 45D it is too late to change the first two of them. TD should have offered declarer's RHO the option to change her play to trick 3, but it's unlikely she would have done so.

Quite right, not sure what they are smoking at BBO
45D2 (for first two tricks) and D1 (for the third) handles this situation.
Even I wouldn't penalize anyone, just offer an espresso to all at table.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2026-April-29, 15:55, said:

Quite right,

On the facts provided, at T4 the TD instructed that dummy be faced (if dummy had played to three tricks those cards had been exposed, but the fact was that no cards from dummy had been exposed) and play to continue (no other instructions). As the play is to ContinuE it is OL lead to T4 that comes next.

One might think that Coelacanth found dummy's plethora of cards at T4 in light of the ruling to be a notable occurrence, but the discussion makes me skeptical.