[jerdonald]

My partner and I were defending a 4 heart
contract when late in the play, declarer
lead the 4 of diamonds which I trumped with
the 4 of hearts, dummy followed with a diamond.
My partner saw my heart and for a second thought
hearts had been lead.

She started to play the 5 of hearts and quickly
realized that diamonds were lead. The heart 5
never got more than a couple of inches from her
hand and was not at an angle where I could have
seen it. As she returned it to her hand the
declarer said "heart 5". The director was
called and the situation explained.
The director said since I was made aware of
the of it the heart 5 became a penalty card.

Is this ruling correct? And if it is why wouldn't
I, as declarer, call out any card I was able to see
in a defenders hand to make it a penalty card?

Jerdonald

[blackshoe]

No, the ruling is not correct. If declarer wants to give you a gift, that's his problem.

[jerdonald]

Blackshoe,
Thanks for the reply.
I see that you're from Rochester NY.
I spent my first 25 years there.

jerdonald

[gordontd]

jerdonald, on 2011-July-27, 21:21, said:

was not at an angle where I could have seen it.

This is the point that matters.

[blackshoe]

Congratulations on your escape!

Welcome to the forums, btw.

[bluejak]

Let me tell you a story. I directed once at the Gold Coast Congress in Australia, and I was called to the table. After declarer had led a card, his LHO had taken the ♥A out of her hand, changed her mind and put it back. I was called, determined where the card had got to, and was just starting to say it had not been played when declarer said firmly "I saw the card." At this point dummy said "We all know it was the ace of hearts."

"True," I said, “declarer's RHO is now legitimately in receipt of the information that his partner has the ace of hearts, which is authorised and he may use, since it came from an opponent: but the card is still not played and may be changed." This was followed by a lot of growling and muttering about foreign Directors.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-July-28, 08:52, said:

"True," I said. ... This was followed by a lot of growling and muttering about foreign Directors.

I'm sure you've sexed it up better for the telling. In reality you told the defender that he was free to use the extraneous information provided by dummy at his own risk, but in the event that he felt he had been misled by this extraneous information, he should call you back later.

[bluejak]

I did not feel that was necessary since I knew it was the ♥A as well.