[One Short]

After the Auction period and before a card is led the defender on declarer’s right knocks over the card-holder. For a brief moment all 13 cards are exposed and it therefore appears under Laws 49 and 50 that the entire hand comprises major penalty cards.

Law 51 is now relevant and it seems that this law is silent on the issue of declarer neither requiring nor prohibiting a lead. That is, offending defender's partner can lead without restriction. Does this mean that forevermore all 13 cards remain major penalty cards?

If so, does it also mean that declarer can in effect play offending defender’s hand? (Law 51(A)

Assuming that the card-holder is retrieved “in the twinkling of an eye” would it then, within the Laws, be a proper exercise of a director’s option to designate that none of the cards is a penalty card?

[weejonnie]

That is, offending defender's partner can lead without restriction. Does this mean that forevermore all 13 cards remain major penalty cards?

Yes. Of course whenever the offender's partner has the lead he/she must wait until the declarer exercises one of his options.

If so, does it also mean that declarer can in effect play offending defender’s hand? (Law 51(A)

Yes - but declarer cannot demand that the offending partner leads or does not lead a specific suit (without having all the cards in the suit being picked up by the offender and being able to play any of them.)

Assuming that the card-holder is retrieved “in the twinkling of an eye” would it then, within the Laws, be a proper exercise of a director’s option to designate that none of the cards is a penalty card?

No - law 49 says 'could possibly have seen its face' - whether the face was seen in reality is irrelevant.

The TD has no alternative but to implement the laws, he has no discretion. 81B2. The closest would be to waive the rectification, for cause, but only at the request of the NOS. 81C4

If this seems hard then remember that the partner of the defender who displayed his/her hand has rather a lot of unauthorised information as to the capabilities of the combined defensive holdings - information that the declarer does not have. Of course this information shouldn't be used but it will be very difficult to avoid doing so.

Good luck in your assessment.

[blackshoe]

Good answers, wee one <g>, but please use some method of distinguishing your replies from the stuff to which you're replying.

[pran]

One Short, on 2015-March-06, 05:40, said:

After the Auction period and before a card is led the defender on declarer’s right knocks over the card-holder. For a brief moment all 13 cards are exposed and it therefore appears under Laws 49 and 50 that the entire hand comprises major penalty cards.

Law 51 is now relevant and it seems that this law is silent on the issue of declarer neither requiring nor prohibiting a lead. That is, offending defender's partner can lead without restriction. Does this mean that forevermore all 13 cards remain major penalty cards?

If so, does it also mean that declarer can in effect play offending defender’s hand? (Law 51(A)

Assuming that the card-holder is retrieved “in the twinkling of an eye” would it then, within the Laws, be a proper exercise of a director’s option to designate that none of the cards is a penalty card?

Your reference to Law 51 confuses me:
Declarer may request or forbid LHO leading in any suit where RHO has at least one penalty card, after which all penalty cards RHO has in such named suit(s) cease to be penalty cards.
Declarer may also choose to let LHO lead whatever card he wants in which case all penalty cards held by RHO (except the one submitted at Declarer's choice to the trick in progress) remain penalty cards.

Yes, Declarer can effectively play offender's entire hand provided he never exercises his option to require or forbid a lead from LHO.

[RMB1]

One Short, on 2015-March-06, 05:40, said:

Assuming that the card-holder is retrieved “in the twinkling of an eye” would it then, within the Laws, be a proper exercise of a director’s option to designate that none of the cards is a penalty card?

I don't think the twinkling-ness is relevant, Law 24 says "every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. ... If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)". I am not sure that "unless the Director designates otherwise" in Law 50, applies to Law 24.

Many players can not cope and do not enjoy declaring when they have multiple penalty cards to play as well, and do not make any more tricks. If I thought declarer was such a player I would suggest that they might like to waive the penalty card rectifications (Law 81) and have the cards picked up. La 81C5 requires "for cause", I think if declarer thinks they will not enjoy/benefit from the penalty cards this is sufficient cause.

[mycroft]

I would believe that "This person has real problems with their hands, and I feel uncomfortable penalizing her this badly for a simple slip" would qualify as cause (which I thought it would have when I had this - not a cardholder, but clear, very strong Parkinson's, and managed to drop what was clearly an entire suit).