[blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law49 andconsequences

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren
> Sven says:
> 
> Law 24 applies "during the auction" (1997) or "prior to the play period"
> (2007)
> 
> Law 49 applies thereafter (during the play period).
> 
> Regards Sven
> 
> 
> Me:
> 
> Well thank you, that never occurred to me. (This is sarcasm, sorry)
> 
> The question of course is what effect the different wording should have on
> the director.
> In this case partner could not have seen the card if he remained in his
> sitting position, and did not see it. Moving his body around he could have
> seen it.
> 
> Again, if the laws are worded different there is probably an intention
> that
> director should rule more strict in the 49 case than the 24 case, but is
> that really meant to be?

I think there is every reason to believe that is exactly what is meant to
be, although I feel that the difference between "in position for the face to
be seen by his partner" (2007L24) and "in a position in which his partner
could possibly see its face" (2007L49) is rather marginal.

In either case the Director will normally accept that a card is not
"exposed" even when faced if it is in a position where partner must bend
over to see its face (e.g. under the table). But again in either case if
there is doubt about whether the card can have been seen by partner the
Director will rule that it is indeed "exposed", particularly if either
opponent can name the card.

Regards Sven