[shyams]

So this buddy of mine has resumed bridge playing after many years. He & I plan to play in a face-to-face tournament in September, so we have discussions on all things bridge. Last evening, our discussion drifted to Laws & Ethics. During the discussion, he asked me this question:

Assume I see my partner fumble with cards and I decide to shut my eyes in anticipation of a disaster. If numerous cards are dropped by partner but I have kept my eyes shut throughout, will the Director still rule these cards as penalty cards?

Asking here because I did not know the answer (I am not a TD)

[pescetom]

I would take no account of the fact that you closed your eyes, or looked away (which seems more rational). It's not mentioned in the Laws and I don't feel obliged to trust that it was timely or effective.

[smerriman]

The law defines an exposed card as one that was placed in a position where it was possible for partner to see it, not whether they saw it. If they were facing in the complete opposite direction during the entire process, I would say that's not exposed - in the same way that possible doesn't include walking around the table and peeking into their hand - but these types of scenarios, there's always a chance they saw it, thus it has to be considered exposed.

[shyams]

Understood. Thank you, both

[sfi]

The real advantage of definitively looking away is that the opponents may see what you've done and not call the director. But as mentioned, the director has little leeway when making a ruling.

[mycroft]

More than "and not call", the opponents might mention that fact to the director, leading to an 81C5 ruling (waived for cause).

This would apply especially if partner clearly has issues with holding cards, which does happen a lot.

I still remember the day two of my good friends (one an occaional partner) called me to the table because the lady, clearly with severe hand shakes, had dropped her (clearly only) 4 clubs to the 9 on the table face up. It was clear they didn't want the ruling, but didn't know to say the magic words, despite my leading questions, so the Law was applied as written. I took them aside later, and showed them 81C5; so that next time, they could ask "is there something we can do here?" and the director could apply it.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-August-20, 12:20, said:

This would apply especially if partner clearly has issues with holding cards, which does happen a lot.

Not at all common over here, maybe because many of the older players are used to holding their cards below the table anyway or simply have less health issues (Parkinson is much lower than North America, although higher than Spain or France or Eastern Europe).

With a similar problem it would seem logical to adopt a card holder, if holding the cards below the table and covering one's lap is not sufficient to handle occasional incidents.

This is very infrequent here, but last year I did meet a player with a large wooden affair in front of her: to my surprise it had four rows (clearly visible from any position) and she proceeded to sort her cards by row I called the certified Director who instructed her to place all the cards on the lowest row, but then seemed disinterested about what UI her partner already possessed and what consequences it might have. Having clearly seen 4=3=2=4, I was in a dilemma myself as to whether this was AI (I'm not allowed to study the position of cards in opponents' hands, but I'm allowed to observe) and what the suit order was in any event.
A few weeks ago I met the same pair again, not sure if she recognised me or not but in any case she sorted her cards by row, this time a more interesting 1=3=4=5. I was a guest, it was her small club this time, their was no certified Director and everyone seemed to consider it perfectly normal My partner told me to shut up. Against our 5♦, her partner confidently led ♥A and (with no indication from the discard or auction) continued hearts for the ruff that set the contract. But the play and a peek at hand diagram revealed the code (♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, the old Italian suit order) and I did better next hand

[pilowsky]

@pescetom
Lucky you aren't playing in a country where hand gestures and facial expressions are an important part of communication.

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-20, 23:03, said:

Lucky you aren't playing in a country where hand gestures and facial expressions are an important part of communication.

Well I am, of course, and it would be possible to convey UI in much the same way when holding cards in hands come to that... but it does seem rather blatant as she gave no reason for using four rows (and when told to use one row she had no problems). Not sure why it would have four rows in the first place, but I imagine it must have been made for some other game or purpose.