Can I put Infernal Pact on Vidal Jarbeaux ?

Yes in English (using Mata as the example)

Mata can play...
and
Mata can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement to play any card

are not the same

The first states that Mata plays the card, the second means that she can meet the requirement to play the card e.g. like having a ready Malk in play allows you to meet the requirement to play Asylum HG.

hardyrange/Sergio aren't wrong they're just trying to point out from a non-native speakers perspective where you have erred.

I am curious, does anyone else think Vidals' text could also be a negative?

Camarilla: Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g. anarch) requirement to play any card. He can meet a given requirement only once each game. +1 bleed.

Ankha wrote:

For me, the problem comes from the "to play" part of the sentence that have no subject. One may think that it allows only Vidal to play cards, another may think it allows anyone (minion/Methuselah) to play card.

You could think that. There is a LSJ response, pointed out by some poster, that it allow to play master and any card that require presence, and not only card she play. So, saying she can "meet requirement" and "play as" is the same thing according to LSJ. I am not arguing semantics here.

Ankha wrote:

For me, the problem comes from the "to play" part of the sentence that have no subject. One may think that it allows only Vidal to play cards, another may think it allows anyone (minion/Methuselah) to play card.

Sure but without a subject for 'to play' you either stick with common English meaning (which for instance in other games would have Vidal meeting the requirements for a player to do something), stick with LSJS view (which is the same) or re-write the ruling which would actually require a rewrite and downgrading of Vidal.

Squidalot wrote:

Sure but without a subject for 'to play' you either stick with common English meaning (which for instance in other games would have Vidal meeting the requirements for a player to do something), stick with LSJS view (which is the same) or re-write the ruling which would actually require a rewrite and downgrading of Vidal.

To be picky Hugh, what was confusing people is that in the common English, a verb without a subject defaults to the last subject. So the sentence, expanded in common English would be: "Vidal can meet the clan, sect, or non-infernal vampire trait (e.g., anarch) requirement for him to play any card."

I don't think we could generalize this to other games... as many other games don't have cards playing other cards. In V:tES you do, so the expansion above would be valid.

That said, I think (both logically, and based on the posts from LSJ), that indeed he can play masters.