[twcho]

Last two cards situation:

RHO leads a card. Declarer detaches one of his cards from his hand and turns it face up in the mid air for 2-3 seconds (everyone can see the card) and then withdraws it into his hand (both cards from his hand are legally permissible cards to play). Can declarer change his cards? Any change in the secenario if LHO has followed before he withdraws his card?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 45C: declarer must play a card from his hand if it is
{a} held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or
{b} maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

If the card held was not "touching or nearly touching the table" I would probably rule it was not played. I have seen players do odd things with cards, such as stick them to their foreheads, facing out. I would rule such a card to have been played, but it doesn't sound like that happened here. If the card is not ruled to have been played, declarer can change it.

If LHO plays a card, and then declarer changes his mind and plays another card, we have a problem. LHO has, technically, played out of turn. I think the play has to stand, but Law 23 may apply, since declarer's waving the card around and then putting it back in his hand is certainly an irregularity (see Law 45A).

Quote

Law 23: Whenever, in the opinion of the director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, the director shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed, the director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

[twcho]

Can we construe the holding card facing up in the mid air for 2-3 seconds as Law 45C(b)?

[blackshoe]

I don't think so. Not if it was at a significant height above the table.

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-25, 22:18, said:

I don't think so. Not if it was at a significant height above the table.

But Law 45C is worded as (a) OR (b), not (a) AND (b), so (b) can stand on its own. In particular, (a)'s concern with the nearness or otherwise of the card to the table is surely not specifically relevant to whether the conditions of (b) are satisfied. Of course, if it was held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, then (a)'s conditions are satisfied and so it was definitely played.

So was it "maintained in such a position as to indicate it has been played"? This is difficult to describe in an online post, and at the table I think I would want to have demonstrated to me just how it was displayed. But it seems quite possible that it could have been played, and if declarer is waving it around in a manner that (1) has meant all players have had clear sight of it, and (2) has induced LHO to conclude that it was played, then I might take some persuading that it wasn't.

[bluejak]

It does not sound played to me. For [b] to apply it has to be clearly played. Now it seems to me what has happened, as I have seen many many times at the table, is that declarer takes it out of his hand, looking worried, and is clearly still making up his mind. In that case [b] does not apply so we rely on [a] and that apparently did not apply.

[barmar]

As Peter says, it can be difficult to tell from a written description of what happened. But at the actual table, it's usually possible to discern declarer's intent. You can tell if he's pulling the card out hesitantly, and waffling over whether to finish playng the card, versus clearly displaying a card to the opponents.

[blackshoe]

There are many cases posted here for which, like this one, you really had to have been there. That is of course not possible, so we muddle through as best we can.

[Rossoneri]

Like the others have said, it's hard without an actual demonstration.