Leading two cards

I have always been quite scathing of law 58B as I've maintained that no one ever leads (deliberate action) two cards from the same hand simultaneously. The law is commonly applied when cards are dropped accidentally alongside a deliberate lead.

Then it happened yesterday, or at least it almost did. The cards were not played simultaneously, but one defender led a card, then led another card before anyone else had played. I think they were trying to change the lead to that trick, rather than leading to the following trick.

I wasn't sure which law should be applied. It certainly doesn't seem right to treat them as simultaneous plays and let offender decide which one should be played. That left me with two options: (i) insist the first lead stand and make the second a major penalty card, or (ii) allow declarer to decide which card is led and make the other a major penalty card. Law 47 suggests that the original lead should stand, law 51A that declarer gets the choice. Also, should I apply law 57 to offender's partner?

Comments

  • I think Law 45E1 applies - if the first card played/lead is confidently identified as being the card deliberately exposed then it is the card played. The second card becomes a penalty card.

    I know 45E talks about the 'fifth card' played and this second card is not fifth card played (in some sense it becomes the 'fifth' card when the other three hands have played). It appears that Law 45 should apply to a second card from any hand contributed to the same trick, regardless of how many other hands have played to that trick.

  • I had a disagreement on a similar issue at the County Directors Course.

    Declarer (or defender, although it was a declarer in my example) plays a card, plucking it out of his hand and placing it on the table. Simultaneously a card drops from his hand, likely a card adjacent to the one he played which became loose and dropped. I maintained that the dropped card is not simultaneously played with the played card but is a card dropped accidentally, to which Law 48 should apply (or Law 49 if the player is a defender). I was told no, these are simultaneously played cards and Law 58 applies.

    My contention is that one needs to look at the action by the player - did he pluck two cards because they were stuck together and so placed both of them on the table at the same time or, as I have described above, he 'played' one card and the other dropped accidentally.

  • Robin: "I think Law 45E1 applies - if the first card played/lead is confidently identified as being the card deliberately exposed then it is the card played. The second card becomes a penalty card."

    I hadn't thought of law 45E1, but that law sends us on to laws 53 and 56, which allow declarer to accept the irregular lead, if the director determines that it was indeed a deliberate lead.

    So do you give declarer the choice? And if the "fifth" card is played before the third card, do you apply law 57, or does it depend on offender's intention?

    Vlad: I've never agreed with this description as a "played card". I don't object to the rule, but it shouldn't be called a "played card" when it's nothing of the sort.

  • TagTag
    edited March 10

    @Vlad... Laws 45 A, B and C define what is a played card. None of these include a card accidentally dropped. Most odd that anyone would suggest that the second card was played.

  • @Tag said:
    @Vlad... Laws 45 A, B and C define what is a played card. None of these include a card accidentally dropped. Most odd that anyone would suggest that the second card was played.

    "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table imediately beforre them."

    If you drop a card it has become detached from your hand by your own action and is now faced on the table. The rest follows. The law should, no doubt say "with intent". "It should, but it doesn't. That is the sloveny way laws are written these days. It may be corrected - next issue."

  • Surely "detaching it" implies intent and does not include allowing it to become detached by accident.

    Alan

  • TagTag
    edited March 10

    The actions of detaching and facing imply deliberate intent. The Laws referenced don't say anything about a card that becomes detached and falls to the table, thus facing itself. It is an exposed card, not a played one.

  • @Tag said:
    The actions of detaching and facing imply deliberate intent. The Laws referenced don't say anything about a card that becomes detached and falls to the table, thus facing itself. It is an exposed card, not a played one.

    How does the card become detached - other than by the actions of the player i.e. not holding onto it tightly enough?

  • I'm sure we can all imagine some large number of ways in which a fumble might happen but they all fall far short of making what could reasonably be called a play.

  • @weejonnie said:

    @Tag said:
    The actions of detaching and facing imply deliberate intent. The Laws referenced don't say anything about a card that becomes detached and falls to the table, thus facing itself. It is an exposed card, not a played one.

    How does the card become detached - other than by the actions of the player i.e. not holding onto it tightly enough?

    If a card dropping on the table is to be considered detached by the action of the player not holding on to it tightly enough, thereby becoming a played card under Law 45A, then it should follow that there is no such thing as a card 'dropped accidentally' under Law 48!

  • @weejonnie said:

    @Tag said:
    @Vlad... Laws 45 A, B and C define what is a played card. None of these include a card accidentally dropped. Most odd that anyone would suggest that the second card was played.

    "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table imediately beforre them."

    If you drop a card it has become detached from your hand by your own action and is now faced on the table. The rest follows. The law should, no doubt say "with intent". "It should, but it doesn't. That is the sloveny way laws are written these days. It may be corrected - next issue."

    Do we need a law to mention/describe intent? Would it not be logical to say that a player holding his cards in one hand and picking one with the fingers of the other hand and putting it on the table has placed the card on the table intentionally, making it a played card under Law 45A, but if a card drops on to the table without the action described above then it is a dropped card? And if the player picks two cards and places them on the table, either because they were stuck together or he was clumsy with his fingers, then he has played two cards simultaneously. I feel that the issue should be judged by the nature of the action.

  • @Vlad said:

    @weejonnie said:

    @Tag said:
    The actions of detaching and facing imply deliberate intent. The Laws referenced don't say anything about a card that becomes detached and falls to the table, thus facing itself. It is an exposed card, not a played one.

    How does the card become detached - other than by the actions of the player i.e. not holding onto it tightly enough?

    If a card dropping on the table is to be considered detached by the action of the player not holding on to it tightly enough, thereby becoming a played card under Law 45A, then it should follow that there is no such thing as a card 'dropped accidentally' under Law 48!

    I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @Vlad said:

    @weejonnie said:

    @Tag said:
    The actions of detaching and facing imply deliberate intent. The Laws referenced don't say anything about a card that becomes detached and falls to the table, thus facing itself. It is an exposed card, not a played one.

    How does the card become detached - other than by the actions of the player i.e. not holding onto it tightly enough?

    If a card dropping on the table is to be considered detached by the action of the player not holding on to it tightly enough, thereby becoming a played card under Law 45A, then it should follow that there is no such thing as a card 'dropped accidentally' under Law 48!

    I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.

    Maybe I misunderstood weejonnie.

  • I'm still not sure how I should have ruled.

  • @Vlad said:

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @Vlad said:

    @weejonnie said:

    @Tag said:
    The actions of detaching and facing imply deliberate intent. The Laws referenced don't say anything about a card that becomes detached and falls to the table, thus facing itself. It is an exposed card, not a played one.

    How does the card become detached - other than by the actions of the player i.e. not holding onto it tightly enough?

    If a card dropping on the table is to be considered detached by the action of the player not holding on to it tightly enough, thereby becoming a played card under Law 45A, then it should follow that there is no such thing as a card 'dropped accidentally' under Law 48!

    I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you.

    Maybe I misunderstood weejonnie.

    No you probably didn't - I was logic chopping - making people think rather than blindly accept.

  • Isn't that called trolling? :)

  • @VixTD said:
    I'm still not sure how I should have ruled.

    As I see it, the first lead was made and then the defender gratuitously faced another card. He can't change his played card (the first one), even if declarer would like him to change it. The second card simply becomes a MPC, with all that implies.

  • You can rule this way if you regard the second card as not a card led to a trick (because there has already been a card led), which I'm happy with. But if offender "...plays out of turn before his partner has played...." the restrictions of law 57A are visited upon his partner. He has, hasn't he?

Sign In or Register to comment.