[Jinksy]

We were playing in a league match last night, when the following events (to the best of my recollection) occurred in sequence (I'll bracket ones whose order I'm not certain of, just in case relevant):

We'd reached a doomed 3N played by me, which the opps were busy cashing their 5-card spade suit against;
At about trick 3 RHO led through me, LHO winning the trick (I think - might have been RHO);
Partner (dummy) claimed that LHO had revealed a card from his hand (by facing both it and the spade at the same time);
LHO (marginally peevishly) denied that he had;
(I and RHO denied that we'd seen it;
I and LHO said it wasn't dummy's place to make such remarks and we should get on with the hand;
Partner (more peevishly) demonstrated that he had seen it by telling us all that the card was the two of hearts);
Partner insisted on calling the director, which I still didn't really want to, but figured after P's reveal we didn't have much of a choice

The director basically told us to get on with it (and said it wasn't dummy's prerogative to highlight such infractions), and said afterwards that it was supposed to be a fairly relaxed evening, so he didn't want to enforce the laws too strictly. My partner interpreted this as 'this is supposed to be a fairly relaxed evening, so I don't want to enforce the laws too strictly'; I interpreted it 'please stop being such a pain in the ass' (which is what I would have said...)

Anyway, suppose we'd been at a tournament event with a stricter director. What would have happened, a) given the actual events, and b) if my partner hadn't blurted out the supposedly revealed card?

[gordontd]

The significant point is not whether you or your partner saw the card but whether the defender's partner could have seen it. If not, the card was not played and play should continue with your partner being told that he isn't allowed to draw attention. If your partner named the card despite it not being played, I think the knowledge of that card's location would be UI to you and I would also fine your partner - probably double the standard amount if the naming of the card was as wilful as it sounds in the retelling.

[Jinksy]

I've slightly edited the OP to clarify - so (from reconstructing afterwards), I think LHO 'played' both cards at once, one stuck to the other. Partner was claiming that since he'd seen it faced, my RHO could have seen it - though RHO denied that he actually had (and neither he or I had noticed the second card being faced at all).

Does that affect your judgement?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2016-November-09, 07:24, said:

The significant point is not whether you or your partner saw the card but whether the defender's partner could have seen it. If not, the card was not played and play should continue with your partner being told that he isn't allowed to draw attention. If your partner named the card despite it not being played, I think the knowledge of that card's location would be UI to you and I would also fine your partner - probably double the standard amount if the naming of the card was as wilful as it sounds in the retelling.

And it is an established recommendation that when there is doubt whether offender's partner could have seen it or not, the fact that a player on the non-offending side is able to name the card in question is sufficient evidence to rule that offender's partner could have seen that card.

However,

Law 9A3 said:

When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. [...]

and

Law 43A said:

1. (a) Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play.

(b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

© Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Note that Law 43A1b is a "may not" law for which a violation is very severe and subject to penalties under Law 90.

I would (under Law 90) have waived any reaction against the defending side in the described case.

[barmar]

As others have said, dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. But if he does so, you still have to call the TD about it, and he should apply the normal rectification, independently of whether he assesses a procedural penalty against dummy.

Based on the clarification about how the card was exposed, the card should become a minor penalty card, in accordance with Law 50B

Quote

A single card below the rank of an honor exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card.

The rule for a minor penalty card is that it must be played before any other non-honor card in that suit. There are no lead restrictions on the offender's partner, but it's UI to his partner that he has that card.

[Vampyr]

A card exposed by being dropped or stuck to another is only a minor penalty card if it is not an honour, so the effect on the play would have been minimal. I agree that dummy should be fined.

I do not find it more relaxing to play in a game where the rules are not consistently enforced, and I don't see why anyone would prefer it.

EDIT: crossed above post.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Vampyr. I prefer to play where the rules are consistently enforced. Also agree with the mPC and the PP as others have suggested.

[phoenix214]

Dummy should keep his mouth shut during play, but may point out after.
I have had the following happen a few times - me being dummy a revoke goes unnoticed - so what - I have to keep my mouth shut anyway about it. Just ask my p later if she noticed it or not.

[Vampyr]

phoenix214, on 2016-November-09, 10:00, said:

Dummy should keep his mouth shut during play, but may point out after.
I have had the following happen a few times - me being dummy a revoke goes unnoticed - so what - I have to keep my mouth shut anyway about it. Just ask my p later if she noticed it or not.

No, you can bring it up at the end of the hand.

[Jinksy]

barmar, on 2016-November-09, 09:32, said:

As others have said, dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. But if he does so, you still have to call the TD about it, and he should apply the normal rectification, independently of whether he assesses a procedural penalty against dummy.

So, as is presumably evident, I didn't exactly support my P's actions here. Nonetheless, when we discussed it afterwards he asked the reasonable (IMO) question of how you draw the line. Presumably if dummy believes he's seen outright cheating going on, oblivious to declarer (eg one defender facing a card and the other clearly looking at it and saying nothing), he has recourse to do something? If so, how does he walk the grey area between preventing outright cheating and possible UI through an irregularity?

(To be clear, I'm entirely convinced that my LHO had no such intention and that my RHO was oblivious to the whole thing until dummy pointed it out - but it does seem like a valid theoretical question)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2016-November-09, 09:19, said:

And it is an established recommendation that when there is doubt whether offender's partner could have seen it or not, the fact that a player on the non-offending side is able to name the card in question is sufficient evidence to rule that offender's partner could have seen that card.

Established only in the world of Pran.

[barmar]

The Laws in general don't address outright, intentional cheating. They're concerned with specifying normal procedures, and what to do when something goes awry, which are general either accidental or through ignorance (e.g. dummy probably didn't realize he's not allowed to draw attention to the dropped card).

Cheating is not usually handled directly by the TD during the game, it's addressed by disciplinary groups at a higher level. If you suspect a pair or player is cheating, you should notify club management after the game, and they should run it up the chain of command.

[gordontd]

Jinksy, on 2016-November-09, 10:06, said:

So, as is presumably evident, I didn't exactly support my P's actions here. Nonetheless, when we discussed it afterwards he asked the reasonable (IMO) question of how you draw the line. Presumably if dummy believes he's seen outright cheating going on, oblivious to declarer (eg one defender facing a card and the other clearly looking at it and saying nothing), he has recourse to do something? If so, how does he walk the grey area between preventing outright cheating and possible UI through an irregularity?

(To be clear, I'm entirely convinced that my LHO had no such intention and that my RHO was oblivious to the whole thing until dummy pointed it out - but it does seem like a valid theoretical question)

Once play is over dummy is allowed to draw attention to an irregularity.

[mycroft]

Attention was drawn (illegally) to an irregularity; the TD should be summoned. That is in fact correct.

"Nobody who was allowed to point this out noticed (note, that if RHO noticed, she needn't say anything); the card (were it in a position for RHO to have seen it) would be a minor penalty card; it is a penalty card unless the director deems otherwise; because it was mentioned illegally, the director will now so deem. Dummy gave extraneous information to partner; it is UI. Dummy gave extraneous information to declarer's RHO; I'm happy to let RHO use it at her own risk. Continue play.

This is supposed to be a fairly relaxed evening, so I don't want to enforce the laws too strictly. Therefore, unless the opponents have a real problem with it, I will treat this ruling as sufficient warning not to do this again, rather than issuing the quarter-board penalty to dummy that I probably should.

Please finish the hand."

I'd be very happy to walk dummy through the Law Book for all of these rulings.

In answer to the bar question; if dummy is going to be concerned about the C word, he'd better be *clearly* on the correct line of Laws 9, 42 and 43. What does he do in that instance? Keep quiet until the end of the hand, call the TD then, explain what happened, take the no-ruling, and trust me, partner will be aware of further issues of that ilk, and the opponents if they are trying anything on will be on notice. If they're scamming the whole room, the TD is also on notice.

Note, however, that it is *not* cheating for LHO to face a card, RHO to see it, and for neither of them to say anything, provided he wasn't doing it deliberately. It's not even illegal, or imProper. Laws 9A4, 72B2 and 72B1.

[Jinksy]

mycroft, on 2016-November-09, 10:57, said:

Note, however, that it is *not* cheating for LHO to face a card, RHO to see it, and for neither of them to say anything, provided he wasn't doing it deliberately. It's not even illegal, or imProper. Laws 9A4, 72B2 and 1.

I was not aware of that

[mycroft]

I will note that *I* don't want to win that way, and there are irregularities that I could keep quiet about, but I won't. My and partner's revokes are the most common such.

[weejonnie]

Jinksy, on 2016-November-09, 13:54, said:

I was not aware of that

You have no obligation to draw attention to your own irregularities (except misleading information - and then only at the proper time). But it is improper to hide them. e.g. by sweeping up cards exceptionally quickly at the end of the hand to hide a revoke.

The result of exposing two cards is not quite straightforward, I think.

If you play two non-honour cards then if you select the one you were originally intending to play then the other is a minor penalty card. If you change your mind then the other is a major penalty card.

If one card is an honour and one a non-honour then if you intended to play the non-honour card and now play the honour card then the non-honour card is a major penalty card. If you intended to play the honour card and don't change your mind then the non-honour card in a minor penalty card. If you play the non-honour card (or there are two honour cards) then the remaining card will be a major penalty card.

At the end of play dummy can ask about a possible revoke, but the fixed restitution (zero, one or two tricks) can only be applied if the auction period for the next hand (or the end of the round) has not started/ occurred. After that it is a 'restoration of equity' situation.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2016-November-10, 05:24, said:

If you play two non-honour cards then if you select the one you were originally intending to play then the other is a minor penalty card. If you change your mind then the other is a major penalty card.

If one card is an honour and one a non-honour then if you intended to play the non-honour card and now play the honour card then the non-honour card is a major penalty card. If you intended to play the honour card and don't change your mind then the non-honour card in a minor penalty card. If you play the non-honour card (or there are two honour cards) then the remaining card will be a major penalty card.

The standard way we apply this rule in England (what we teach on directing courses) is that if a defender has exposed two cards in the process of playing one, offender gets to choose which card is played to this trick. The original intention is immaterial. (The other becomes a major or minor penalty card, as you describe.)

I find this difficult to reconcile with the wording of law 50B. I think your interpretation fits it better. If a defender deliberately plays card A and in doing so accidentally exposes card B, it doesn't see right to allow them to decide that card B should be played and card A treated as if it had been accidentally exposed. Maybe the reason we do this is that it's not always easy to establish what offender's intention was.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2016-November-10, 07:47, said:

The standard way we apply this rule in England (what we teach on directing courses) is that if a defender has exposed two cards in the process of playing one, offender gets to choose which card is played to this trick. The original intention is immaterial.

I'm surprised you say that. It's certainly not what we teach panel TDs!

[barmar]

I think the idea is that it may be difficult to determine what the actual intention was, except by asking the player, and taking him at his word. This effectively allows him to decide after the fact. But if the irregularity is noticed before the next player has played a card, it's hard to imagine a reason why he would change his mind. If he was trying to win the trick, and only one of the cards does that, why would he then decide that the actual card is the one that loses?

There may be some rare cases where he could strategically decide to play the other card, to prevent declarer from taking advantage of forcing him to play that card next. But this would have to happen in a case where there's some way for the TD to determine independently which card was really intended.