[mycroft]

You are playing South, and your partner pulls out his hand from board 6, when he realizes he didn't score board 5. So he puts his hand down on the table to pick up the Bridgemate. Except he puts it down face up, and the ♠Q is clearly visible. He notices his mistake quickly, and grabs the hand, replaces it face down and scores the board.

Nobody says anything; it's possible the opponents didn't even notice.

Law 24 says this is a card exposed during the auction, and is an infraction.
Law 9A5 says that there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (and the exception doesn't apply).
Law 16C says this is unauthorized information for you - but that only triggers when the Director applies Law 24 and requires the card to be replaced on the table face up.

So, if you don't say anything either, ...? As usual, if not "fixed answers", explain in the replies.

(Yes, this happened today in my Sectional. No, my South didn't pull this; she called the Director herself, and I would not expect anything else from her. Yes, the opponents didn't even notice what happened. But in the abstract, it's a "laws vs ethics vs personal ethics" question that I find very interesting, and I would like to see what others think.)

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2026-February-07, 20:43, said:

Law 16C says this is unauthorized information for you - but that only triggers when the Director applies Law 24 and requires the card to be replaced on the table face up.

I am not sure how 16C applies at all, even though the law apparently says it does. It looks to me like 16C is a typo and the intended reference is to 16D. That aside, when you see your partner's exposed card you have UI. I don't see a requirement in the UI laws that the Director apply Law 24 in order for the prohibition against using UI -- which to me is the important aspect of Law 16 -- to apply.

South, who exposed the card, did the right thing in calling the director. North, if she saw the card, is also, it seems to me, obligated to call the director, not because of the law (since law 9A5 says she doesn't have to), not because of "bridge ethics" (since the ethics of a game are defined by its rules), but because of personal ethics (though I would not fault a North who did not call, because of 9A5 and because I don't expect others to hold to my personal ethics).

In practice, if a side commits an irregularity (an infraction is an irregularity), neither member of that side calls attention to it, and neither member of the other side notices, or if a member of the other side does notice he does not call attention to it, nothing will be done because the Director will never know about it. But this is not how I envision bridge being played.

[jillybean]

This is another interesting question.
It is clear in the laws that we do not need to draw attention to an infraction committed by our side, the exception, if we know the laws, is for a missing alert or mis explanation. How often do your opponents alert you to the fact of a missing alert or wrong explanation?
Do other exceptions exist?

Ethical is defined by the individual, hard feelings occur when you call the Director and players feel their ethics are in question.
It can't be unethical for the offending side not to call the Director when they are unaware they have committed an irregularity, having never read or understood the Laws.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2026-February-07, 22:24, said:

I am not sure how 16C applies at all, even though the law apparently says it does. It looks to me like 16C is a typo and the intended reference is to 16D. That aside, when you see your partner's exposed card you have UI. I don't see a requirement in the UI laws that the Director apply Law 24 in order for the prohibition against using UI -- which to me is the important aspect of Law 16 -- to apply.

South, who exposed the card, did the right thing in calling the director. North, if she saw the card, is also, it seems to me, obligated to call the director, not because of the law (since law 9A5 says she doesn't have to), not because of "bridge ethics" (since the ethics of a game are defined by its rules), but because of personal ethics (though I would not fault a North who did not call, because of 9A5 and because I don't expect others to hold to my personal ethics).

In practice, if a side commits an irregularity (an infraction is an irregularity), neither member of that side calls attention to it, and neither member of the other side notices, or if a member of the other side does notice he does not call attention to it, nothing will be done because the Director will never know about it. But this is not how I envision bridge being played.

Agree 99% with this and I like the distinction bridge/personal ethics. My only reserve is that while the high level laws clearly define a set of principles, a few more practical laws go against the grain: thus players who do not know the law may feel bound by bridge ethics to act in a certain way when they are not bound by law, or are even breaking law by doing so. What newcomer would ever guess that it is legal to say nothing when an opponent revokes, even if we stand to gain should the revoke become established? And when bridge ethics fail, we fall back on personal ethics as you say. I don't expect others to hold my personal ethics but I would have a negative feeling about anyone who would say nothing about the revoke, let alone having seen partners card.

[Coelacanth]

mycroft, on 2026-February-07, 20:43, said:

Law 24 says this is a card exposed during the auction, and is an infraction.

The Definitions state that the auction begins when the first call is made. This hasn't happened, so we are not in the auction. We are in the auction period (L17). L16D1 describes this situation ("...by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins...the Director should be notified forthwith...")

So I would notify them forthwith and let them rule under 16D2.

[mycroft]

Argh, and I was just writing about the difference in another note!

Thanks for (yet again) the reminder.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2026-February-07, 23:34, said:

This is another interesting question.
It is clear in the laws that we do not need to draw attention to an infraction committed by our side, the exception, if we know the laws, is for a missing alert or mis explanation. How often do your opponents alert you to the fact of a missing alert or wrong explanation? Do other exceptions exist?

I should think the question is how often opponents fail to call attention to a failure to alert or a mis-explanation by their side. And I don't know the answer. I'm sure it happens. I don't know how often. Players who do not know their obligations here should be educated at the first opportunity. Subsequent offenses should be penalized. As for other exceptions, none as far as I remember. It's possible I need some educating.

jillybean, on 2026-February-07, 23:34, said:

Ethical is defined by the individual, hard feelings occur when you call the Director and players feel their ethics are in question.

Personal ethics are personally defined. And if merely calling the director causes someone to feel his ethics have been questioned then either the caller did something that actually implied or stated that he was questioning his opponent's ethics (he shouldn't have done that), or there has been an id10t error by the opponent. Yeah, maybe that's an overstatement. Sue me.

Re: id10t: apparently bbo is a designated "safe space". Thank you, woke idiocy.

jillybean, on 2026-February-07, 23:34, said:

It can't be unethical for the offending side not to call the Director when they are unaware they have committed an irregularity, having never read or understood the Laws.

Of course not.

[blackshoe]

A person who does not know the law, but feels "bound" to do something by this law he does not know would do well to find out what the law actually says before doing something that may turn out to be stupid.

[jillybean]

LOL

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2026-February-08, 21:34, said:

A person who does not know the law, but feels "bound" to do something by this law he does not know would do well to find out what the law actually says before doing something that may turn out to be stupid.

Yes, but always knowing the law is setting the bar pretty high for the average player. And they can't open the law book during play to check what it says, which is another of those things they might not expect.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2026-February-09, 07:28, said:

Yes, but always knowing the law is setting the bar pretty high for the average player. And they can't open the law book during play to check what it says, which is another of those things they might not expect.

If you don't know the law for sure, you should err on the side of reporting anything that seems "sketchy". And seeing a card in partner's hand is obviously not normal, so anyone should know to call the TD.

The only situation I can think of offhand where calling attention to something that seems wrong is trying to correct MI by your partner prematurely (before the end of the auction for the declaring side, before the end of the hand for the defending side).

While the law says that a card is exposed if partner could have seen it, in practice we often let this go ("no harm, no foul") if it's clear that they didn't actually see it. For example, if someone drops a card on the floor, it's common that everyone else averts their eyes while the player fetches it. And an ethical partner should not lie about having seen it.

I'm not very happy that this situation falls under "not required to call attention to irregularity by one's own side". I think that should be reserved for infractions that you commit, not infractions committed by your partner that affect you. E.g. you don't have to call attention to your own revoke or misbid, because partner is as much in the dark as the opponents. But when partner exposes a card and you see it, that gives you a clear, unfair advantage over the opponents.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2026-February-09, 16:00, said:

If you don't know the law for sure, you should err on the side of reporting anything that seems "sketchy". And seeing a card in partner's hand is obviously not normal, so anyone should know to call the TD.

I agree, but think you failed to catch the thread drift.
The point about not knowing the law was related to situations where the law goes against the grain of personal ethics or even general bridge law ethics, like not being obliged to point out a revoke.
It's obvious that it does not apply to the original question about seeing a card in partner's hand, or overhearing the result of a board. In such a clear situation personal ethics should leave no doubt about what to do (and not surprisingly, the Laws coincide).

barmar, on 2026-February-09, 16:00, said:

I'm not very happy that this situation falls under "not required to call attention to irregularity by one's own side".

It doesn't (see comment of Coelacanth above).

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2026-February-09, 16:00, said:

I'm not very happy that this situation falls under "not required to call attention to irregularity by one's own side". I think that should be reserved for infractions that you commit, not infractions committed by your partner that affect you. E.g. you don't have to call attention to your own revoke or misbid, because partner is as much in the dark as the opponents. But when partner exposes a card and you see it, that gives you a clear, unfair advantage over the opponents.

Sensible, mostly, but a misbid is not an infraction. Not sure it's an irregularity either.

[blackshoe]

Does this make sense to people? Is it useful? Is it correct? :-)

{Player takes his hand out of the board} The Auction Period begins for his side (Law 17A).
{A player makes the first call} The Auction begins. (Definitions. Note that Law 17B says "the player designated by the board as dealer makes the first call." This might imply that if someone other than dealer makes the first call, the auction hasn't started yet. Law 29 deals with this, so I think the implication is incorrect.)
{After the first call, i.e. after the auction starts, there are three consecutive passes} The Auction ends. (Law 22)
{The Opening Lead is made face down} The Clarification Period begins. Declarer (but not Dummy) and the defenders get to ask questions. (Law 41, Law 17D)
{The Opening Lead is faced} The Auction Period ends and Play Period begins -- irrevocably, say the law (Law 41C). So if the Opening Lead is faced too early, there might not be any Clarification Period. If no one has bid, the Auction Period ends when all four hands have been returned to the board.
{The cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or the last board of a round is quitted)} The Play Period ends. (Definitions)
The sequence and procedure of play are defined in Law 44, but there seems to be no definition in the law book analogous to "the Auction" for "the Play". It seems that "Play" and "Play Period" are contiguous, each beginning and ending with the same action(s).