Minor penalty card (or not)

Law 50 B

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; ...

The first sentence suggests that if two cards are played to a trick, a card below the rank of honour that remains unplayed becomes a minor penalty card. This is how we ruled for a number of years.

The second sentence suggests that if two cards are played and the unplayed card was the card originally intended to be played, then that card becomes a major penalty card (regardless of rank). To apply the second interpretation, we need to know which card was intended to be played and there may be no alternative but to ask the player (away from the table). This involves a number of awkward points: the player choosing which of two cards to designate as played needs to know that the status of the remaining card depends on which card was originally intended, the player may lie (or be suspected of lying) in answering which card was originally intended, and are the opponents entitled to know which card was originally intended or just the status of the remaining card (and, if they know the law, they may deduce which card was originally intended)? The originally interpretation avoids these issues, and (as a consequence) is still adopted by many directors.

Torquay

At the recent EBU congress in Torquay, we came across an example where the original intent was clear, and the second interpretation did not lead to these awkward issues, and a card below the rank of honour exposed as one of two cards played to a trick clearly became a major penalty card.

East, a defender, had previously discarded on a diamond trick, played ♣9 to a subsequent diamond trick, but when it reached the table a small diamond appeared beneath the ♣9. The application of Law 58 to the two cards played simultaneously meant the diamond must be played, because it was the legal play. It was clear that East did not think he had a diamond in his hand, so the director was content that the ♣9 had been the card played (exposed through deliberate play) and so was a major penalty card; without having to ask East away from the table.

In retrospect, this is really two examples. It would have been possible to make the determination that the ♣9 was originally intended, without the combination of two circumstances: the earlier revoke and the ♣9 being the original only visible card. If there had been an earlier revoke and both a diamond and a club appeared as played, it may be possible to rule that the card that should have been played to the revoke trick was not the intended card. Alternatively, if the club was played completely obscuring the diamond until the two cards were on the table and became separated, it would be possible to rule that the club was the originally intended played card.

As in many other cases, determining intent and asking questions to determine intent are things the laws should avoid.