[blml] Minor/Major

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
"They who sin with caution,
                         whilst concealed,
 Grow impudently careless,
                          when revealed."
                 ~ Susannah Centlivre.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rebecca
To: blml at rtflb.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: [blml] Minor/Major


I'm sure minor versus major penalty cards have been discussed before, but
after a ruling yesterday (not by me) I just wanted to see what others
thought.

A diamond was led, followed on table and offender then put the three of
clubs on the table.  Offender then went "Oh, I need the Director" and called
one.  Director asked what happened.  Offender said "The three of clubs and
the King of Diamonds were right next to each other and I inadvertently went
to pull the King and the three came out."  The Director asked if the card
fell out or was placed on the table.  Offender repeated their statement
pretty much verbatim.  Director ruled that the King be played to correct the
revoke and the three of clubs be played as a major penalty card - which
meant it was led immediately thus solving the problem.

The offender was most put out as they felt that it should be a minor penalty
card.

Re-reading the Laws Law50B is the one that applies - "A single card below
the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to
a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card".
The question is whether the three of clubs was played inadvertently.

In my opinion, it is the difference between carelessness and true
inadvertency - was offender just not being careful?  In the event of doubt,
the Director must rule in favour of the non-offending side.

I think the inadvertency provisions are very difficult to put into practice.
In this case, if offender had literally played the King and the three
dropped out, no hassle, it becomes a minor penalty card.

I know this seems trivial but I thought I'd ask this august body their
opinion anyway!

+=+ Dear Rebecca,
        A welcome voice, but where from?
        With respect, you flatter these precincts with the description
'august' - we are fallible journeymen, error prone, argumentative,
gentlemen songsters.....
        But to the facts. Your account of the matter tells us that the
card was pulled out unintentionally (i.e. 'inadvertently') by a player
who was intending to pull out a different card. She immediately
realized that an accident had occurred, drew attention to it and
called the Director. The Director took the view that as she had
pulled one card out and placed it on the table she had performed
the actions that constitute play of the card. He ruled on that basis.
The club was illegally played, corrected by the play of a diamond,
and as a card illegally played - a revoke corrected - became a
major penalty card. If the unintended card had been a small
diamond - a legal play - the Director would have ruled the card
played and it could not have been retracted.
        You may feel it harsh, but the account is one of a player
who deliberately pulls out a card and puts it in the played position.
Careless it was but not inadvertent within the meaning of the laws
that apply. The player's brain directed her fingers to take hold of
the card and lay it on the table; these were purposeful actions,
inattentive but deliberate.
                     Regards,
                                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml