At what precise point is card deemed to have been played?

[Liversidge]

An unpleasant situation arose recently when we were playing social bridge with no trained director present. Declarer had won the previous trick and was about to lead to the next trick when he realised he had revoked on the previous trick. He had selected the card he wanted to play and was holding it about 12" from his chest in a way where noone could see what the card was. He announced that he had revoked and put the card back in his hand and went to play another card. An opponent objected and said he must play his original card and the revoke was now established.

There were lots of opninions expressed about exactly when a card is deemed to have been 'played'. One player said the card has to be face up and close to the table. We then discussed what 'face up' means. Does it mean when it is held such that one or both opponents can see what the card is (even if they may not actually have seen seen it)?

[Vampyr]

An unpleasant situation arose recently when we were playing social bridge with no trained director present. Declarer had won the previous trick and was about to lead to the next trick when he realised he had revoked on the previous trick. He had selected the card he wanted to play and was holding it about 12" from his chest in a way where noone could see what the card was. He announced that he had revoked and put the card back in his hand and went to play another card. An opponent objected and said he must play his original card and the revoke was now established.

There were lots of opninions expressed about exactly when a card is deemed to have been 'played'. One player said the card has to be face up and close to the table.

 

This is what L45C2 says.

 

We then discussed what 'face up' means.

 

Seriously?

[Liversidge]

This is what L45C2 says.

 

 

 

Seriously?

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The discussion was getting silly. One player felt that 'close to the table' was vague and open to argument. He asked whether, if he was in the process of extending his arm with the card held at 45 degrees, 12" from the table (so semi-face up and close-ish) and then paused when realising he had revoked, would he be allowed to withdraw it if all the players agreed that they had nots seen it, and if there was a dispute, how could a director rule? If the card was actually 'on' the table or partly in declarer's hand there would be no argument.

[pescetom]

If my opponent so objected, I would ask him what card he had seen, without insisting much about distance from table which is a less objective affair.

[VixTD]

....if he was in the process of extending his arm with the card held at 45 degrees, 12" from the table (so semi-face up and close-ish)....

This doesn't look like "played" to me. According to law 45C2(a) it has to be held in a played position (face up, touching or nearly touching the table). Law 45C2(b) presumably makes allowances for occasions when a player obviously intended to play a card but did it in a way that didn't fulfil the requirements of (a). That's not the case here. The WBF commentary says:

 

Bringing the card to the table and retracting it in the same movement also does not make it ‘played’. The

definition of a declarer’s played card is only fulfilled at the moment when the card comes to rest.

 

So ask yourself if it was held (did it come to rest) in a played position according to law 45C2?

[pran]

An unpleasant situation arose recently when we were playing social bridge

Not much social in the attitude described if you ask me.

[gordontd]

If my opponent so objected, I would ask him what card he had seen, without insisting much about distance from table which is a less objective affair.

But whether or not the card was seen, or could have been seen, is not any part of the condition for a declarer's card being played.

[weejonnie]

Card has not been played as Law 45C2 has not been complied since I don't think 12" from chest is maintained in such a position to indicate it has been played.

 

2. Declarer is deemed to have played a card from his hand if it is:

(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or

(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

 

Mind you if declarer has played another card from hand then the revoke is established then.

 

I would say that 'touching or nearly touching' the table basically means a gap of the order of 0 to 2-3 inches. Put it like this - I know it when I see it.

[barmar]

But whether or not the card was seen, or could have been seen, is not any part of the condition for a declarer's card being played.

Right. That's close to the criteria for a defender's card -- if their partner could have seen it, it's considered played.

 

The criteria for declarer makes it easier for them to retract a card that's in the process of being played because there's no UI problem -- declaerer's partner is dummy. The withdrawn card is AI to the opponents, so it can hardly damage them to know a card in declarer's hand.

[blackshoe]

First question: is this social game played under duplicate rules or rubber rules? Second question: is there any difference in this particular case?

[pescetom]

But whether or not the card was seen, or could have been seen, is not any part of the condition for a declarer's card being played.

Fully granted, but in a social game it would be enough to convince me to avoid argument.

[pran]

But whether or not the card was seen, or could have been seen, is not any part of the condition for a declarer's card being played.

Precisely:

Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), 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.

Declarer is deemed to have played a card from his hand if it is:

(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or

(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

Declarer is free to "change his mind" until his action of playing a card has been completed.