Law 45 C2a

[PeterE]

Critical to that is the concept of "held" being interpreted as stationary, or the equivalent, so were the cards held stationary, or did he move them down then grab them back? If the former, they were played: if the latter, not.

I recently had a case where declarer detached a card from his hand, "held" it face up and made it towards the table. At the moment the card (still in hand) touched the table, declarer changed his mind and took the card back without any pause in his move. This scenario was performed by a defender and agreed.

 

I was very sure being told by (international) authorities in the past, that "held" in Law 45 C2a needs at least some stationary element to rule the card a played card.

 

Now, defender at the table afterwards questioned my approach and asked me to prove it. Having found nothing appropriate in the Minutes and other regulations, I turned to a WBFLC member and asked him. His answer was that "standstill" is not part of the law and that it can't be deduced from the simple word "held".

 

So, I decided to change my approach only yesterday ... and now I read the same (old :() approach in David's post (sigh :blink: ).

 

Where does that approach (standstill being necessary to rule declarers card played) come from? I did not find anything in the Minutes, Grattan's 1993 commentary, Ton's 2008 commentary.

Is it binding or mere a matter of (local) interpretation / regulation?

[gordontd]

What would be the difference between saying:

 

"face up, touching or nearly touching the table" or saying

 

"held face up, touching or nearly touching the table"?

[blackshoe]

I suppose if a card is floating in mid-air it is not "held". :)

[bluejak]

I suppose to be truthful it is an English interpretation of the word held. I have never previously heard of any authoritative source that disagreed.

 

We only have to look at the disagreements at San Remo over the "correct" answers to some of the simulations to realise that interpretation is not standardised. There were a lot of WBFLC members on the staff at San Remo.

 

It culminated in my asking a question of the approach to what you say to the table in a potential Law 27B1B case. After asking Ton, Max, Mauricio and Grattan - three members of the WBFLC and one of Europe's leading authorities - I had four opinions.

[gordontd]

I suppose if a card is floating in mid-air it is not "held". :)

One might say a card is moving in mid-air, or we might say it is held in mid-air, and I think we'd know what is the difference.

[barmar]

Something we could use to guide is is the difference in language between 45C2a and 45C2b. (b) uses the word "maintained", which I think more clearly implies a certain duration. From this contrast, I interpret that (a) uses the word "held" merely to indicate that it's not necessary for the card to leave your hand; it can be considered played if it's still in your hand when it's touching or nearly touching the table.

 

This law sometimes bothers me. Declarer doesn't have a partner who can be influenced by seeing a card that's then retracted, and we don't assess penalty cards against declarer. So why do we have to insist that he play a card that's reached a certain physical proximity with the table? And considering how vague (b) is (I'm sure reasonable people will sometimes disagree on whether a particular position "indicates that it has been played"), it's not like we've got an unambiguous rule like chess's touch rule. So why not let declarer change his mind until LHO plays? The only problem is if he changes his mind based on noticing a defender's body language in reaction to showing the card (but what if he shows the card briefly, but doesn't put it anywhere near the table?).

 

But I guess I'm veering off-topic into the forum down below. It's sometimes hard to avoid that pitfall with poorly worded laws.

[RMB1]

This law sometimes bothers me.  Declarer doesn't have a partner who can be influenced by seeing a card that's then retracted, and we don't assess penalty cards against declarer.  So why do we have to insist that he play a card that's reached a certain physical proximity with the table?  ...

I always assumed the law was to prevent declarer gaining an advantage by seeing defenders' reaction to a card he then withdraws.

[mycroft]

I was told (when I did it) that touching the table (*), even instantaneously, is a played card.

 

We (in the ACBL) were then given advice to the same effect a couple of years later, so here, at least, we have no ambiguity (or, at least, the ambiguity has been moved an inch or so up).

 

Other jurisdictions, of course, ... as always.

 

(*) provided the face is visible, of course. I would *love* to apply this rule to the declarers who hold a card vertical on the table forever, then either decide it's not right or let it fall. But personal annoyance does not a law make.