[Jinksy]

In this case only one of the two cards was of the suit led, so presumably that would make things simpler.

[sanst]

pran, on 2016-November-09, 09:19, said:

And it is an established recommendation that when there is doubt whether offender's partner could have seen it or not, the fact that a player on the non-offending side is able to name the card in question is sufficient evidence to rule that offender's partner could have seen that card.

Where does it say that? It's quite possible for the dummy to see one of the opp's cards, but that doesn't mean that the partner could have seen it. There is a distinct difference between 90 degrees and 180, as your math teacher has probably pointed out when you were young.
It's up to the director to find out whether the partner could possibly have seen the card. But your method is a shortcut that has no foundation in the laws, but admittedly saves the director from letting the player(s) replay the play of the cards.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2016-November-10, 08:06, said:

I'm surprised you say that. It's certainly not what we teach panel TDs!

I'm delighted to hear it, Gordon, but how do you then explain the following extract from the current White Book?

Quote

[WB8.58.2] Minor penalty card if two cards visible?
When two cards are both visible the player designates the card they propose to play. This does not need to be the card they originally intended. If the player is a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but it is only a minor penalty card if it is not the card they originally intended, and if it is not an honour.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2016-November-11, 07:50, said:

I'm delighted to hear it, Gordon, but how do you then explain the following extract from the current White Book?

That's precisely what I think we should say, but I don't think it's what you said! You said "the original intention is immaterial" whereas it is material to whether a small card is a major or a minor penalty card.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2016-November-10, 14:55, said:

Where does it say that? It's quite possible for the dummy to see one of the opp's cards, but that doesn't mean that the partner could have seen it. There is a distinct difference betwee 90 degrees and 180, as your math teacher has probably pointed out when you were young.
It's up to the director to find out whether the partner could possibly have seen the card. But your method is a shortcut that has no foundation in the laws, but admittedly saves the director from letting the player(s) replay the play of the cards.

He said that you assume it was visible if in doubt one way or the other. If the TD can actually determine it, you don't follow that guideline.

It seems similar in spirit to the law that says how to choose between misbid and misexplanation in absence of evidence.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-November-11, 09:08, said:

That's precisely what I think we should say, but I don't think it's what you said! You said "the original intention is immaterial" whereas it is material to whether a small card is a major or a minor penalty card.

It's immaterial in a way, because why would a player subject himself to a major penalty card when they could have a minor one instead?

Laws which require mind reading are worse than foolish.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-11, 09:54, said:

It's immaterial in a way, because why would a player subject himself to a major penalty card when they could have a minor one instead?

Laws which require mind reading are worse than foolish.

This one doesn't require mind-reading, though it does rely on honesty from the player. As do many laws.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2016-November-11, 09:08, said:

That's precisely what I think we should say, but I don't think it's what you said! You said "the original intention is immaterial" whereas it is material to whether a small card is a major or a minor penalty card.

I see that I misread Weejonnie's explanation and he was ruling according to the White Book. I don't know how that happened, sorry about that.

If offender's intention is material in deciding whether the card not chosen is a major or minor penalty card, then the reason for giving them a choice in the first place cannot be the difficulty in establishing offender's original intention. If we're back to allowing offender to deliberately play a card and then change it for one dropped accidentally, I've gone back to being less than delighted.