[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-18, 20:26, said:

While I'm not at all sure there is justification in this case for the TD to "designate otherwise", I won't discount the possibility until I've examined it.

Law 49 says "except in the normal course of play or application of law" a defender's exposed card becomes a penalty card. Other than that, AFAIK, there is no guidance as to when the TD may "designate otherwise".

There is no guidance, but nor is there any limitation. I came across a case this week when a declarer had accidentally exposed one of the defenders' cards. The first thing that needed to be done was to rule that it was not a penalty card.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-18, 20:26, said:

While I'm not at all sure there is justification in this case for the TD to "designate otherwise", I won't discount the possibility until I've examined it.

Law 49 says "except in the normal course of play or application of law" a defender's exposed card becomes a penalty card. Other than that, AFAIK, there is no guidance as to when the TD may "designate otherwise".

He may designate otherwise for instance if he comes to a table and finds that a player apparently has a penalty card although he (as TD) never has been called and ruled so.

Law 10B said:

The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions.

Law 11A said:

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

(My enhancement)