[Pict]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

I'm not looking for anything, I'm determining what actually happened and then making the correct ruling on that basis (at least trying to do that). Do you want to give that a try instead of simply making snarky comments and crying a river for the poor player who carelessly plays the wrong card?

You post on the Laws forums sometimes from the viewpoint of a player. Apologies that was not your intention here.

Personally I never post on the basis that the OP has the facts wrong: I don't see that it leads anywhere.

I have no problem imagining a situation where both cards are exposed and one hits the table first.

If the OP actually just dropped a card out of his hand accidentally, then there is nothing to discuss. I do find it harder to imagine that when he is holding two cards - hence the relevance of the title?

[iviehoff]

pran, on Apr 29 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

[If the Director found that the two cards became visible from two separate actions (first accidentally dropping the ♠6, next playing the ♠Q) his ruling was correct.

If, as a defender, you accidentally drop a card, it is not a played card, rather it becomes a penalty card, which you may then be forced to play. But since the dropped card in your scenario is not an honour, it only becomes a minor penalty card. You are within your rights to choose to play an honour in the same suit as a minor penalty card. So I think your analysis of this scenario is wrong.

[InTime]

I really appreciate all the valuable replies . . . it was actually very informative.
To me personally, when something like this happens, there are a lot of thumbling and scrambling . . . to such an extent that unfortunately the TD must come to a decision and make a ruling.
The motto is . . . try to avoid it next time . . . there will always be a controversy on what exactly happened . . . take it as a bad experience . . . and forget it . . .
It was just unfortunate . . .
Again . . . Thank you all . . . I was really overwelmed by all the responses.
Regards

[pran]

iviehoff, on Apr 29 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

pran, on Apr 29 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

[If the Director found that the two cards became visible from two separate actions (first accidentally dropping the ♠6, next playing the ♠Q) his ruling was correct.

If, as a defender, you accidentally drop a card, it is not a played card, rather it becomes a penalty card, which you may then be forced to play. But since the dropped card in your scenario is not an honour, it only becomes a minor penalty card. You are within your rights to choose to play an honour in the same suit as a minor penalty card. So I think your analysis of this scenario is wrong.

Accepted

[jdonn]

Pict, on Apr 29 2010, 07:42 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

I'm not looking for anything, I'm determining what actually happened and then making the correct ruling on that basis (at least trying to do that). Do you want to give that a try instead of simply making snarky comments and crying a river for the poor player who carelessly plays the wrong card?

You post on the Laws forums sometimes from the viewpoint of a player. Apologies that was not your intention here.

Personally I never post on the basis that the OP has the facts wrong: I don't see that it leads anywhere.

Which brings us back to the fact his story was contradictory (and thus I asked more questions about it). That can easily be proven to your satisfaction as you seem to believe he clearly states the cards were played simultaneously, and yet from his two posts I glean
"the 6♠ sort of landed first"
and
"I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q"
and
"while I was playing the card I immediately saw that it is the wrong card"

Those are all statements suggesting the 6 was played before the Q, not to mention that every time he says some form of the word "simultaneous" he prefaces with "sorta". (One more hint the 6 was played first - that's what the director at the table ruled!) This all leads me to believe the 6 was played first. And at worst shows real contradictions in his story.

It's true that it's easy to rule correctly if one was played first and it's easy to rule correctly if they were played simultaneously. I don't see much value in pointing out those facts but making no effort to determine which happened in this case. That is the meat of this thread and the only real interest of the problem.

[aguahombre]

Perfect (above). JD is not assuming the OP has the facts wrong, but rather deciphering the whole post to determine what the facts probably are, and done a damned good job of it, too.

[Pict]

As I understand the Laws (possibly incorrectly) if I show ,say the Queen of spades, it is played. If another card falls from my hand and hits the table before I lay down the Queen, the Queen is still the card played.

So I don't see that the constant emphasis on the 6 spades reaching the table first has any significance.

[blackshoe]

Where in the OP or the OP's second post does he say that he "showed" the Q before the 6?

[jdonn]

Pict, on Apr 29 2010, 01:16 PM, said:

As I understand the Laws (possibly incorrectly) if I show ,say the Queen of spades, it is played.  If another card falls from my hand and hits the table before I lay down the Queen, the Queen is still the card played.

So I don't see that the constant emphasis on the 6 spades reaching the table first has any significance.

Let me repeat one of the quotes from the original poster.

"while I was playing the card I immediately saw that it is the wrong card"

While he was playing the card he was it was the wrong card.

He didn't drop the 6 while he was playing (or showing) the queen. He admits he accidentally played the 6. I don't know where you get the showing the queen and dropping the 6, it seems you are just inferring based on his intentions.

This really should be a very easy case. He made a careless mistake as we all do from time to time, and he has to live with the consequences of that careless mistake.

[bid_em_up]

Pict, on Apr 29 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

As I understand the Laws (possibly incorrectly) if I show ,say the Queen of spades, it is played.  If another card falls from my hand and hits the table before I lay down the Queen, the Queen is still the card played.

So I don't see that the constant emphasis on the 6 spades reaching the table first has any significance.

Do you also understand the laws to say "when the six is exposed first, then retracted and the Queen is played in its place, that in reality the six is the played card"?

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

. . . while I was playing the card I immediately saw that it is the wrong card and before it sorta landed on the table I replaced it with the Q♠. Declarer has not called for the 10♠ out of dummy . . . so both cards were exposed after each other.

The play of the six wasn't truly an "accident" as in "uh oh, I dropped two cards on the table exposing both" or "damn, that card just fell out of my hand", but instead the play of facing the six to the table and then, "oh *****, thats the wrong card, I meant to play the Queen" so then the Queen was faced to the table also.... is the way I interpret this.

So the six remains the played card. It's not that hard, really.

[Pict]

OK

All you guys are right. The OP is at the very least deceiving himself. Sherlock/Mycroft/Jdonn has spotted the deception and solved the problem to the applause and adulation of his fans.

Well done all.

Or facts are hard things etc.