[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2020-February-19, 15:22, said:

If he has played a card he has played a card. Its not even remotely the same situation. I've actually have had exactly that ruling.

Agreed. So when he has named a card, then he has named a card. Let us look at Law 49 for a minute:
LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER’S CARDS <snip>when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

It does not add: "But see Law 68A when the intent of the player naming the card is to claim that he will win that card.", or words to that effect. Why not? Clearly in this case, there was no concession, and no statement about an uncompleted trick, so the named card is an MPC. If he had said "I will win the queen of spades", then I would completely agree; that is a claim. If he shows the queen of spades and his partner can see it, then, technically, Law 49 applies. If he shows it to declarer, no penalty. If in going to show the queen of spades, he drops it, tough luck, I am afraid.

And, by the way, despite what Law 49 says, I would rule at my club that he HAD made a claim when he names (or shows) it and I would not allow SB to triumph.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2020-February-19, 21:05, said:

If in going to show the queen of spades, he drops it, tough luck, I am afraid.

Depends where it landed and whether it landed face up.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-19, 21:45, said:

Depends where it landed and whether it landed face up.

Only when it is "in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face", I would agree. But we digress.