From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Is this an infraction?
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:27:46 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


> In article <C1C78v.KAu@ais.org>, hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
> > in his own hand.  "Wait a minute," says East, who then shuffles through
> > dummy's diamonds to reveal that the ace among them is in fact the ace of
> > HEARTS.  (The suit of the card was completely hidden from view, so that
> > only the red "A" was visible.

In article <1993Jan24.170601.12087@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>,
reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur) writes: 
>  All players have a right to
> a clear view of dummy and can ask for the cards to be spread out.
> This in no way implies that you have the card that was obscured.

This is correct.  East should not in any case touch dummy's cards
(Law 7B2). 

> It is easy to not give away what was in your hand,
> but it could be the case that a person might exhibit behaviour
> (such as looking at his hand multiple times, scracthing his head and possibly
> saying "that CAN't be the ace of diamonds.) This would be clearly unethical.

The sense of the original posting was that East's manner of asking in
fact revealed that East held the D-A.  Law 49 says "Whenever a
defender... names a card as being in his hand..." the card in
question becomes a penalty card.  So if East's conduct definitely and
unambiguously revealed the possession of the ace of diamonds, there
was an infraction.  Law 50 gives the applicable penalties.  (The card
becomes a penalty card, and lead penalties apply whenever West is on
lead before the card is played.)

In reality, the situation may not be so clear cut.  East may have
implied holding the D-A but not definitely revealed it.  Law 16
deals with "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play,"
and that sounds applicable here.  Thus a director could reasonably
forbid West to make any play that _could have been based_ on
expecting that partner holds the diamond ace.  If the director goes
this route, East's conduct is not in itself an infraction, but West's
later plays may be.

The director should instruct North and East on proper procedure.

> On a related note, I was dummy and when a card was played to a trick by a
> defender I noticed that it was two cards stuck together.
> Should I have have pointed this out?

It seems reasonable to do so, but the answer is no - or at least not
right away.  Law 42B lists dummy's qualified rights.  (Dummy forfeits
these rights by, for example, looking at another player's hand.)  Law
42B2 provides that dummy "may try to prevent any irregularity by
declarer" (but not by a defender).  And 42B3 dummy "may draw
attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is
concluded."

So the answer is, you should have kept silent until play finished or
until someone else noticed a problem and called the director.  Then
Law 42A1 gives you the right to "give information, in the Director's
presence...."

The same Laws apply if dummy notices any other infraction by
defenders - a revoke, for example.  Keep quiet until the end of the
hand, then stop other players from mixing their cards, and call the
director. 
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge