I eventually found that Rav Shach answers my question in laws of loans chapter 13, law 04 [page 209A in the Avi Ezri]. In short, Rav Shach shows that to the Raavad, there is no difference between an oath, “I do not have your deposit. It was stolen,'' and an oath, ''I do not have your pledge. It was stolen.'' And this fits with the claim of the Raavad brought in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat chapter 88, law 19 that there is no difference between denial of a deposit and a denial of a pledge. Therefore, the Raavad holds for a pledge that saying, “Here it is” does not count unless it is there in court, and ready to be returned to the borrower. This makes everything simple in terms that to the Raavad the court does not see any difference in denial of a pledge or a deposit. ------I eventually found that רב שך answers my question in laws of loans chapter 13, law 04 [page ר''ט in the אבי עזרי]. In short, רב שך shows that to the ראב’’ד, there is no difference between an oath, “I do not have your deposit. It was stolen,'' and an oath, ''I do not have your pledge. It was stolen.'' And this fits with the claim of the ראב’’ד brought in שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פ''ח הלכה י''ט that there is no difference between denial of a deposit and a denial of a pledge. Therefore, the ראב’’ד holds for a pledge that saying, “Here it is” does not count unless it is there in court, and ready to be returned to the borrower. This makes everything simple in terms that to the ראב’’ד the court does not see any difference in denial of a pledge or a deposit. So my distinction between a paid or unpaid guard in terms of “here it is” not a valid distinction.