[InTime]

---

I was sitting South and we were defending 3NT. My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q. The tournament Director was called and they claimed that the 6♠ was played first and therefore they claimed 3NT.
The result of this was -12 IMPS against us because 3NT cannot be made and our partners at the other table went down 1.
Is this ruling correct seeing that it is the last 2 cards to be played?
Regards

[mjj29]

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

I was sitting South and we were defending 3NT. My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q. The tournament Director was called and they claimed that the 6♠ was played first and therefore they claimed 3NT.
The result of this was -12 IMPS against us because 3NT cannot be made and our partners at the other table went down 1.
Is this ruling correct seeing that it is the last 2 cards to be played?

Whether or not it's the last two cards is irrelevant. The ruling is not correct:

L58B Simultaneous Cards from One Hand said:

If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: .. 2. If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender each other card exposed becomes a penalty card

If you expose more than one card while playing to a trick you get to specify which you intended to play and the remainder are major penalty cards, which in this case is irrelevant, since it is the 13th trick.

[iviehoff]

No, the ruling was not correct.

See especially Law 58B on simultaneous plays:

L 58 B If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously:
1. If only one card is visible, that card is played; all other cards are picked
up and there is no further rectification (see Law 47F).
2. If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he
proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed
becomes a penalty card (see Law 50).

More generally, an accidentally dropped card is not a played card. It wasn't "held":

L 45 C 1 A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face
must be played to the current trick

And since it is not an honour, it is only a minor penalty card so it doesn't have to be played if you wish to play an honour instead.

L 50 A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may
apply).
A. Penalty Card Remains Exposed
A penalty card must be left face up on the table immediately before the
player to whom it belongs, until a rectification has been selected.
B. Major or Minor Penalty Card?
A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in
playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a
minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through
deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then
correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or
more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards.
C. Disposition of Minor Penalty Card
When a defender has a minor penalty card, he may not play any other card
of the same suit below the rank of an honour until he has first played the
penalty card, but he is entitled to play an honour card instead. Offender’s
partner is not subject to lead restriction, but information gained through
seeing the penalty card is unauthorized (see E following).

The fact that it was trick 12 is irrelevant.

[jdonn]

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

[Pict]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

I think it is just you.

[InTime]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

It may sound like it . . . but it happened very fast . . . 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. I asked my partner what he did saw and his explanation was that if the x♠ and the Q was sorta simultaniously . . . if he had to put a time limit on it . . . a second or less out of each other.
I did not asked declarer or my partner to name the small ♠ to make sure that they have actually seen the card.
I do not want to make excuses . . . but at that moment I did not feel it was bridge.
Regards

[Oof Arted]

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 01:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

It may sound like it . . . but it happened very fast . . . 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. I asked my partner what he did saw and his explanation was that if the x♠ and the Q was sorta simultaniously . . . if he had to put a time limit on it . . . a second or less out of each other.
I did not asked declarer or my partner to name the small ♠ to make sure that they have actually seen the card.
I do not want to make excuses . . . but at that moment I did not feel it was bridge.
Regards

You appear to say that the 6 Dropped on the table and as soon as you saw it you scooped up the 6 and replaced it with the Queen

That being so I agree with Jdonn The y were NOT stuck together

[jdonn]

Pict, on Apr 28 2010, 01:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

I think it is just you.

How does one card hit first if they are stuck to each other? And what does it mean to switch them, you stick them to each other in the other order?

In fact the followup post makes it seem to me like they were not stuck and the 6 was accidentally played first then quickly replaced. Like he thought he was pulling the queen, pulled the 6, saw it just as the 6 was being played, then corrected it as the 6 hit the table. The 6 sounds like a played card to me.

[Pict]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

Pict, on Apr 28 2010, 01:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

I think it is just you.

How does one card hit first if they are stuck to each other? And what does it mean to switch them, you stick them to each other in the other order?

In fact the followup post makes it seem to me like they were not stuck and the 6 was accidentally played first then quickly replaced. Like he thought he was pulling the queen, pulled the 6, saw it just as the 6 was being played, then corrected it as the 6 hit the table. The 6 sounds like a played card to me.

Are you seriously saying you are looking for a trick out of this?

[blackshoe]

It's not a question of "looking for a trick", it's a question of what the ruling should be. It looks to me like the player played the 6, saw it wasn't what he intended, and quickly changed it. Unfortunately, the law doesn't let him do that. I would rule that the 6 is played and the Q is (irrelevantly, since it's the 13th trick) a major penalty card. Now, if the declarer asked me to waive this rectification, I would certainly consider doing so, and might even do so — but absent such a request, I would rule as the law requires.

If the situation were as originally implied — in playing the Q, the 6 accidentally came down as well — I would rule differently, but it doesn't appear to me that is what actually happened.

[jdonn]

Pict, on Apr 28 2010, 03:48 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

Pict, on Apr 28 2010, 01:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 28 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

InTime, on Apr 28 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

My partner North switch to a x ♠, East discarded, and the Q6 stick to each other and the 6♠ sort of landed first. In one movement I retracted the 6♠ and replaced the 6 with the Q.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other?

I think it is just you.

How does one card hit first if they are stuck to each other? And what does it mean to switch them, you stick them to each other in the other order?

In fact the followup post makes it seem to me like they were not stuck and the 6 was accidentally played first then quickly replaced. Like he thought he was pulling the queen, pulled the 6, saw it just as the 6 was being played, then corrected it as the 6 hit the table. The 6 sounds like a played card to me.

Are you seriously saying you are looking for a trick out of this?

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?

[bluejak]

If the 6 was played first, it was played, and cannot be retracted. If the cards were played simultaneously you get to choose which you play, so presumably the Q would be played. The TD has to determine from what you and the other three say what happened.

Whether it is trick 12, whether the cards stuck together, and what you intended are all irrelevant.

Do I want to win a trick in a way that the Laws stipulate as both legal and ethical? Yes please.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Apr 28 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

Do I want to win a trick in a way that the Laws stipulate as both legal and ethical? Yes please.

Yep. And I also expect to lose a trick in a way that the laws stipulate, etc.. We should pay for our brain farts.

And as an opponent, of the player in question: if the action was obviously a spastic act, not a lapse of the mind -- and both cards hit the table at approximately the same time, the queen would be the played card.

[peachy]

I feel sorry for your playing the six but your second post description indicates that the six should be ruled as the played card. The laws do not protect us from our mistakes or mental lapses. If it were at a tournament, I would accept the windfall as your opponent and not feel at all that is "not bridge". At the club it is more informal, I might or might not call the TD, depends.

[Codo]

aguahombre, on Apr 29 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

And as an opponent, of the player in question: if the action was obviously a spastic act, not a lapse of the mind -- and both cards hit the table at approximately the same time, the queen would be the played card.

Sorry to disagree, I am not there to give grace to the fault of my opponents. At the club I would, but the OP described it as a kind of serious tournement, so I would respect the rules and feal sorry for my opps.

In the last championship I passed a forcing bid. We had been the only pair in the tournement to play 4 NT +3, all others reached the slam. Do you think that my opponents should have said: Hey to pass RCKB is silly, please change your bid?
Of course not. So why should I be graceful with their "brainchicanes"? These things happen, they are part of the game. We have to accept them and pay for them.

[mjj29]

Codo, on Apr 29 2010, 01:57 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Apr 29 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

And as an opponent, of the player in question: if the action was obviously a spastic act, not a lapse of the mind -- and both cards hit the table at approximately the same time,  the queen would be the played card.

Sorry to disagree, I am not there to give grace to the fault of my opponents. At the club I would, but the OP described it as a kind of serious tournement, so I would respect the rules and feal sorry for my opps.

I would generally regard "in the same action" to be simultaneous - so if in the process of revealing a card another one drops and happens to land first purely because my hand is moving slower than gravity, I would (as a player and as a director) consider them to be 'simultaneous' plays. Saying 'but they weren't _quite_ at exactly the same time' is, I think, wrong, since then where do you draw the line - very few things are actually simulltaneous with sufficiently accurate measuring instruments...

As has been said though, if this was not the case, the OP is SOL and the ruling was correct.

[Free]

This story is very strange. You have 2 cards in your hand, it's hard to play them both at the same time because you keep one in your left hand and pick the other one with your right hand (or vice versa). Also the story contradicts itself (like Josh mentions).

So, were both cards played at the same time or not???

If they were, then the ruling is wrong.
If they were not, then the ruling is correct.

[WellSpyder]

Free, on Apr 29 2010, 02:58 AM, said:

This story is very strange. You have 2 cards in your hand, it's hard to play them both at the same time because you keep one in your left hand and pick the other one with your right hand (or vice versa).

Suppose that you hold the cards in your left hand and pick out the Q with your right hand as suggested. But because the cards stick together a bit, you accidentally dislodge the small card from your left hand while you pick out the Q, and the small card hits the deck first.

[helene_t]

WellSpyder's interpretation makes sense, but we really need to see this on video I think. Fortunately, here in England we have CCTV everywhere

[pran]

WellSpyder, on Apr 29 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

Free, on Apr 29 2010, 02:58 AM, said:

This story is very strange. You have 2 cards in your hand, it's hard to play them both at the same time because you keep one in your left hand and pick the other one with your right hand (or vice versa).

Suppose that you hold the cards in your left hand and pick out the Q with your right hand as suggested. But because the cards stick together a bit, you accidentally dislodge the small card from your left hand while you pick out the Q, and the small card hits the deck first.

I have a feeling that this description best fits OP on what happened.

The Director must rule on which card is "played" when one card drops from a defender's hand while he is playing a different card, the dropped card becomes visible (slightly) before the played card and both cards can legally be played at this time.

The way I understand Laws 45 and 58B it is completely irrelevant if one of the cards was unintentionally dropped rather than played. What matters is only if the activity qualifies to be two cards played simultaneously from the same hand as regulated in Law 58B (which then takes precedence over law 45).

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 instead he should have found that the two cards became visible (although at slightly different times) from the same action his ruling was incorrect.