International Bridge Laws Forum

Welcome, Register :: Log in

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ]

[ Print ]

[ Send ]

[ Watch ]

[ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

Derek 2 posts bridgetalk member Reply

Change of card [2] ( 08:33:07 WedAug 7 2002 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper Variation on the theme . Declarer is playing in a heart contract. He plays a club from dummy and intends to ruff it . the cards are slightly sticky and when he looks down the heart is there and on top of it is the jack of spades . The card was not dropped in the usual sense but the director ruled that the heart was played and the spade was accidently exposed. Agree ? Or should he rule that the spade is played as it was on top . Declarer clearly stated that he intended to play the trump. [Edited By bluejak at 14:16:40 Wed Aug 7 2002]

bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply

Re: Change of card [2] ( 14:26:34 WedAug 7 2002 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper It is a little difficult to find this in the Laws! However, there is no doubt that the effect of the Laws on declarer is that cards intended to be played are played, those not intended are not. The effect of what you describe here is the same as if the heart was played and the spade was dropped, so I would rule the heart is played and the spade is returned to hand. Is this covered by the Laws, Ed? --- David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply

Re: Change of card [2] ( 07:14:33 ThuAug 8 2002 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper Not specifically, but Law 48A says Quote: Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally. So if the TD decides that the spade was dropped accidently, this law would govern. On the evidence available, I agree with your ruling, David.

Joost Boswijk 7 posts bridgetalk member Reply

Re: Change of card [2] ( 10:43:36 ThuAug 8 2002 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper Isnt'this covered by law 58 B2: Quote: If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50). and then 48A?

bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply

Re: Change of card [2] ( 12:00:59 ThuAug 8 2002 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper Sounds the correct answer to me! Yes, I had a blind spot, and thought that Law only applied ot defenders. But it doesn't, of course. --- David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply

Re: Change of card [2] ( 23:34:39 SatAug 10 2002 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper Heh. *You* had a blind spot? I missed that law entirely. Perhaps there should be cross references between the two laws.

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ]

[ Print ]

[ Send ]

[ Watch ]

[ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

Register :: Log in The time is now 00:47:53 Wed Aug 27 2003

top

Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF

Legend :: Read Topic :: Unread Topic

Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status