[blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 andconsequences

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hans van Staveren" <sater at xs4all.nl>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:16 AM
Subject: [blml] Difference in wording between law 24 and law 49 
andconsequences


> Law 24 states:
> When the Director determines, during the auction, that because of a 
> player's
> action one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the 
> face
> to be seen by his partner,
>
> Law 49 states:
> Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a 
> defender's
> card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face
>
> It seems that under Law 49 a card is ruled exposed a bit sooner than in 
> Law
> 24.
>
> A case just arose here where during sorting the hand a player(with an arm 
> in
> a cast) dropped the Spade Jack open on the floor, seen by his RHO. 
> Director
> was called and might not have handled things too well, but it looks like
> everybody sort of agreed the offenders partner had not actually seen the
> card, although had he tried he could well have.
>
> In TD courses in general with Law 49 we rule that if a player holds a card
> such that has partner could have seen it, had he looked, that the card is
> played.
>
> My feeling is that the less strong wording of Law 24 would lead to the
> ruling in this case that the player could just pick up the card.

Do we play bridge?  john


>
> Opinions?
>
>
> Hans van Staveren
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml