[blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2

[Ed Reppert]

On Sep 18, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote:

> However, once we get to L50 "inadvertency" is a key test re MPC/mPC.
> Commonly, when playing two cards to a trick, one is intended and the
> other gets stuck to it (occasionally neither is the intended lead).
> This situation very seldom requires mind-reading.  A modicum of bridge
> logic and a question such as "What happened?" will get the right  
> result.
> Sure as a TD one might, once in a blue moon, conclude that offender  
> is a
> lying cheat but there is nothing to stop one from ruling on that  
> basis.
> Generally playing 2 cards is seldom advantageous and we have L72b1 if
> necessary even then.

Seems to me if you get to 50 via 58B you have a card exposed  
inadvertently, whatever the player's original intent. Law 50  
specifically mentions the situation in the context of a minor penalty  
card, and makes no suggestion that this is or might be a major  
penalty card.

As for the right result, well, that depends on which interpretation  
of the law is correct, doesn't it? :-)