[Jeremy69A]

You are declarer(South) in 4♠.

---

You win the opening lead of the ♦5 and play trumps with East winning the second one. East plays a ♦back, you win in dummy and play a ♣ to the Jack and Ace

The trick is quitted and LHO switches to a ♥ which you run losing to the hand on the right. Whilst this trick is going on declarer looks puzzled. East now says "When I played my low club and quitted the trick I think I picked up dummies remaining low club and added it to the cards in front of me."

South now says "But that isn’t fair. I led the Club to get some discards but when West led the heart I suddenly realized that there were no clubs in dummy so I ran the heart in the hope the King was with West otherwise I would have risen with the Ace and taken some discards. I didn't realise dummy was a trick short"

How would you rule? Law 67 only seems to cover you adding one of your own cards to a trick not one of the other sides!

Opinions welcome and it is real life not something made up!

[RMB1]

I would rule under Law 73 and adjust because declarer was deceived by defender's action.

There is some problem describing defender's action as "a voilation of the Proprieties described in this law" but I think the law is intended to apply.

[iviehoff]

I would rule under Law 23 and award an adjusted score. The defender has committed an irregularity under Law 7B3 (touching another player's cards), at the least. This irregularity - concealing one of the opponent's cards - is surely always one that one could reasonably anticipate would damage the other side, thus the application of Law 23 is clear.

[Coelacanth]

RHO has also violated Law 65 - Arrangement of Tricks, which stipulates (among other things) that each player "turns his own card face down". (emphasis mine)

I would thus have no trouble adjusting under Law 23. 11 tricks to declarer.

[bluejak]

I adjust. If one of the Laws quoted looks relevant, fine, if not there is Law 12A1.

[blackshoe]

Interesting problem.

The actual irregularity here is IMO a violation of Law 7B3: "No player shall touch any cards other than his own". As others have suggested, I would rule under Law 23 that East "could have known" that his opponent would be damaged, and adjust accordingly. "No player shall" is a pretty serious prohibition. In a tournament, I would issue a PP. At a club, i would give serious consideration to issuing one, and perhaps only not do so if there was some mitigating factor, like the position of the card in question on the table. I don't think 65 is needed for this ruling, nor do I think that 73 is appropriate.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-05, 11:21, said:

The actual irregularity here is IMO a violation of Law 7B3: "No player shall touch any cards other than his own". As others have suggested, I would rule under Law 23 that East "could have known" that his opponent would be damaged, and adjust accordingly. "No player shall" is a pretty serious prohibition. In a tournament, I would issue a PP. ...

I note that this offence is listed in Law 90B5 under "Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty"

[BunnyGo]

May I add a twist to this question? What if the player sitting North had asked East if he'd be willing to turn cards while North ran to the bathroom? Does this change anything in your minds?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-05, 11:21, said:

The actual irregularity here is IMO a violation of Law 7B3: "No player shall touch any cards other than his own". As others have suggested, I would rule under Law 23 that East "could have known" that his opponent would be damaged, and adjust accordingly. "No player shall" is a pretty serious prohibition. In a tournament, I would issue a PP. At a club, i would give serious consideration to issuing one, and perhaps only not do so if there was some mitigating factor, like the position of the card in question on the table. I don't think 65 is needed for this ruling, nor do I think that 73 is appropriate.

Penalising East seems rather extreme. It doesn't sound as though he did it intentionally, or has ever done it before, or will ever do it again. Nor, I expect, is there any need to make an example of him - even if you let him escape unpunished, I doubt if it will lead to an epidemic of similar behaviour.

[gwnn]

 Jeremy69A, on 2012-January-05, 06:17, said:

Opinions welcome and it is real life not something made up!

This beats even the most contorted lamford examples so I have no problem accepting this .

[blackshoe]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-January-06, 04:08, said:

May I add a twist to this question? What if the player sitting North had asked East if he'd be willing to turn cards while North ran to the bathroom? Does this change anything in your minds?

North can't legally ask that question. If that did happen, I wouldn't issue PPs in MPs, but give a warning to both North and East. Yeah, I know, they're gonna think I'm nuts, "everybody does it," yada yada yada. It's still illegal.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-06, 04:09, said:

Penalising East seems rather extreme. It doesn't sound as though he did it intentionally, or has ever done it before, or will ever do it again. Nor, I expect, is there any need to make an example of him - even if you let him escape unpunished, I doubt if it will lead to an epidemic of similar behaviour.

Must I point out, every time I mention PPs, that the mildest form of PP is a warning not to do it again (whatever it was)?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-06, 09:23, said:

Must I point out, every time I mention PPs, that the mildest form of PP is a warning not to do it again (whatever it was)?

No, you don't have to point that out.

However, if you say "I would issue a PP", I will assume that you mean "I would issue a PP, which might take the form of a warning or might be a stronger penalty." If you mean to say "I would give East a warning", a good way to say it is "I would give East a warning".

I have to say, though, that even issuing a warning seems excessive. What future occurrence are you trying to prevent by doing so?

[blackshoe]

I'm trying to get East to pay closer attention to what he's doing. That might involve a future recurrence of this same problem, it might involve a different carelessness.

[axman]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-06, 04:09, said:

Penalising East seems rather extreme. It doesn't sound as though he did it intentionally, or has ever done it before, or will ever do it again. Nor, I expect, is there any need to make an example of him - even if you let him escape unpunished, I doubt if it will lead to an epidemic of similar behaviour.

Failing to heavily penalize E is extreme. whatever E's motivation to comingle cards this incident amplifies the reason for wanting to instill in all players the desire to care enough to not do it.

[Vampyr]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-January-06, 04:08, said:

May I add a twist to this question? What if the player sitting North had asked East if he'd be willing to turn cards while North ran to the bathroom? Does this change anything in your minds?

What would change? East would say "no" and declarer would play his own dummy. Or are you suggesting that North would really make such a request and East would really agree to it? Now East would be subject to PPs for handling an opponent's cards even if he did nothing else irregular.

EDIT: Missed blackshoe's post, and differ in his assertion that "everybody" does it; where I play nearly no one does.

[blackshoe]

I did not assert that "everybody does it", I asserted that players would claim, in their defense for doing it, that "everybody does it". In fact, everybody doesn't do it — nearly always they don't have to, because one defender or the other (or both) will volunteer to do it. Around here, that's what "everybody does".

For those who've lost track, "it" refers to a defender handling dummy's cards for declarer in dummy's absence, or to dummy asking a defender to do so.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-09, 09:39, said:

In fact, everybody doesn't do it — nearly always they don't have to, because one defender or the other (or both) will volunteer to do it.

Weird that people will volunteer to commit an infraction, and put themselves in the position where, if anything goes wrong, they will be liable.

[blackshoe]

I suppose most of them don't really know that it's an infraction — because, after all, "everybody does it".

[barmar]

Around here, dummy usually asks "I need to go to the restroom, can someone turn my cards?" and both defenders will readily agree.

I've seen things like this in ACBL national events. Dummy may go to the restroom, or even take a smoke break, and ask others (or even a kibitzer) to turn their cards.