[Fluffy]

wondering how is the law 45C1 worded in english, I had my RHO picking up the only card that would give me the contract in her hand and the pulling back, while I could clearly see it, I didn't think that my LHO could since the angle didn't seem apropriate. Stablishing the facts on this matters sounds like a pain for director.

[Trinidad]

From the WBF Lawbook:

Quote

C. Compulsory Play of Card
1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).

Rik

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 04:03, said:

wondering how is the law 45C1 worded in english, I had my RHO picking up the only card that would give me the contract in her hand and the pulling back, while I could clearly see it, I didn't think that my LHO could since the angle didn't seem apropriate. Stablishing the facts on this matters sounds like a pain for director.

In my experience, the best way to do this is for the players to act out what happened. The worst way is to ask questions (e.g. "Could your partner have seen the card?").

Rik

[RMB1]

> Establishing the facts on this matters sounds like a pain for director.

We have to do some difficult things to earn our keep.

The approach for this sort of problem we teach here is to give the player a different card and tell them to repeat the movement they made. If the movement is agreed we can then look at where the card got to and who could see the face.

[Fluffy]

What about 45c4? it seems to refer to declarer misscalling a card from dummy, but in spannish lawbook it says ' player' not declarer, so should be applied to defenders as well.

[RMB1]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 05:14, said:

What about 45c4? it seems to refer to declarer misscalling a card from dummy, but in spannish lawbook it says ' player' not declarer, so should be applied to defenders as well.

It only applies to defenders (and declarer playing from their hand) if they play a card by naming it. You can only "miscall" if you call rather than detach the card from your hand. Law 45C4 does not apply to players miss-pulling a card from their hand: there is only Law 49 if defender drops a card.

[fito]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 05:14, said:

What about 45c4? it seems to refer to declarer misscalling a card from dummy, but in spannish lawbook it says ' player' not declarer, so should be applied to defenders as well.

law 45C4 talks about a player than names a card, not only declarer. Any defender may say: "I play the 5 of ♦", and in it's case: "I play the 5 of ♦, sorry, the 10 of ♦" , that's what Law 54C4 is talking about. Another matter is than the TD interpretation of an " unintended designation", and " if he does so without pause for thought". IMO it must be very clearly to apply it to and expert player, but I may be more permissive with a beginner player

[Fluffy]

Ok so just to clarify, partner leads ♦Q, dummy plays ♦K, and I say:
-And I play the ace!

while I mistakenly play the ♦4.

May I withdraw ♦4 for the ace?

[RMB1]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 12:51, said:

Ok so just to clarify, partner leads ♦Q, dummy plays ♦K, and I say:
-And I play the ace!

while I mistakenly play the ♦4.

May I withdraw ♦4 for the ace?

The law applies to changing an inadvertent naming to another naming. "And I play the ace ... I mean queen".

The ruling in the scenario you describe is either the Ace is played and the ♦4 is played [deliberately exposed] subsequently or the Ace and the ♦4 are two cards played simultaneously.

The likely outcome is that ♦A is played and ♦4 is a major penalty card.

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 12:51, said:

Ok so just to clarify, partner leads ♦Q, dummy plays ♦K, and I say:
-And I play the ace!

while I mistakenly play the ♦4.

May I withdraw ♦4 for the ace?

RMB1, on 2013-December-01, 13:41, said:

The law applies to changing an inadvertent naming to another naming. "And I play the ace ... I mean queen".

The ruling in the scenario you describe is either the Ace is played and the ♦4 is played [deliberately exposed] subsequently or the Ace and the ♦4 are two cards played simultaneously.

The likely outcome is that ♦A is played and ♦4 is a major penalty card.

I tend to agree except on one point:

From the description I take the remark "-And I play the ace" as solid evidence that this was the intention so I would rule that the Ace is played. (Notice that although the ♦4 was physically exposed, so was verbally the ♦A. Regardless of how we rule we therefore have two simultaneously exposed cards here).

The ♦4 is now clearly a penalty card, but is it a Major penalty card? The moment we accept that the clear intention was to play the ♦Ace the exposure of the ♦4 cannot be ruled anything but inadvertent, just as if it had been accidentally dropped on the table.

I should therefore rule that the ♦4 is a minor penalty card.