[paulg]

I am not a qualified TD but, with them all away drinking and dancing at a Highlands congress, I was running the Scottish European trials this weekend.

In the final set, declarer led a trump, the ♣4, from dummy, RHO played the ♣2 and the ♣3 fell out out declarer's hand onto the table. It was the rightmost card in her hand and there was complete agreement from RHO that the card had fallen and there was no sense of it being chosen, or played, by declarer. However, in such an important event, I was called to the scene.

Scouring through Law 45 and Law 47 I could find no way of letting her pick it up, but eventually I noticed Law 48 concerned declarer's exposed cards and that "Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally." was in Law 48A. Ruling duly given, although it seems a little unfair that defenders cannot pick up cards in similar circumstances subject to normal UI constraints. Especially when you consider that a defender can purposefully expose all his cards, and pick them up again, when he makes an erroneous claim (in such circumstances normal UI contraints are applied) - of course this came up too otherwise I would not have known it

Anyhow, ten seconds after my ruling the table explodes into laughter. Declarer had apparently played the ♣A and LHO had shown out, so playing the dropped card would have been a play that the Rabbit would have appreciated.

[iviehoff]

Was declarer's LHO particularly keen to allow declarer to pick the card up, by any chance?

[ggwhiz]

So you have the Rabbit and the Secretary Bird foregoing a possible penalty. Who were the other two?

I don't know about the ruling but they got one and good on them for laughing it off.

[paulg]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-27, 08:19, said:

Was declarer's LHO particularly keen to allow declarer to pick the card up, by any chance?

LHO was on the other side of the screen and so did not participate in the discussion ... only the laughing.

[mycroft]

Paul:

- if the defender had dropped the ♣2, it's a minor penalty card rather than a Major one - and the penalties are much less (almost nonexistent, but it can cause an issue with your signalling).
- if the defender exposes her cards as a concession, she can pick them back up, on partner's objection, but yes, UI applies.
- if it had been the ♣T, well, then sure, it's a Major penalty card, but that's to minimise the need for UI rulings. In my experience, it's a good alternative - especially given the part of the UI laws that state that, effectively, "you are not entitled to know she has this card, [or wanted to play it, in different cases]. But you *are* allowed to know that if you play a club, she'll play the T." That's hard enough for the players to understand; if it were just "pick it up, UI", the confusion, the bad feeling when it "looks like he catered for it" or "Why should I have to drop her K under my A because...", and the number of callbacks would be much higher.

[BunnyGo]

ggwhiz, on 2012-February-27, 10:20, said:

So you have the Rabbit and the Secretary Bird foregoing a possible penalty. Who were the other two?

I don't know about the ruling but they got one and good on them for laughing it off.

No it'd be the Secretary Bird insisting on the penalty even to his own demise while the Hog or Papa the Greek "kindly" would be trying to forego any penalty.

It'd be Karapet as the Rabbit's partner in this case (as his luck can never go right).

[barmar]

paulg, on 2012-February-27, 05:17, said:

it seems a little unfair that defenders cannot pick up cards in similar circumstances subject to normal UI constraints.

I think it's because it can be very difficult to ignore such blatant UI. Most UI is relatively vague -- hesitations can have several different causes. But an exposed honor card is loud and clear, and requiring a player to totally ignore it is difficult. So they came up with the penalty card rules, that allow declarer to control the situation when his partner gets on lead.

Since there's no UI issue with declarer exposing his cards, we don't need to be so draconian.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-February-27, 20:15, said:

I think it's because it can be very difficult to ignore such blatant UI. Most UI is relatively vague -- hesitations can have several different causes. But an exposed honor card is loud and clear, and requiring a player to totally ignore it is difficult.

But we wouldn't require a player to ignore it. We would require a player to (paraphrasing) consciously avoid actions that are suggested by knowing about the dropped card. That is much easier to do.

In any case, that's what we already do require. The rules about penalty cards are in addition to the rules about UI, and Law 16 already applies to all incorrectly exposed cards. The effect of PaulG's suggestion is to merely remove the additional penalty, without introducing any new constraints on the defenders.