[jillybean]

You are declaring a contract. Trick2, RHO makes a lead and before you can play a card LHO has his card out and resting vertically on the table, the face of the card is not visible.

Do you call the director in a club game, in a tournament, ever?

[blackshoe]

Not the first time. The first time I suggest to him that the practice is annoying and ask him not to do it. The second time I call the director.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-04, 16:37, said:

Not the first time. The first time I suggest to him that the practice is annoying and ask him not to do it. The second time I call the director.

Don't think I really want an opponent knowing something annoys me but agree with the rest.

[jillybean]

It's not only annoying, isn't it illegal and tells partner you have no choice on the trick?

[blackshoe]

Well, if it's annoying, it's illegal because of that (Law 74A2), but I don't think any other law makes it so. I don't think one can infer that he has no other card he can play to this trick. Maybe he has AK and is planning to win the trick and play another to see if partner has petered. Or maybe something else is going on that implies only that he has a good handle on the hand and knows how he wants to defend.

[BunnyGo]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-05, 00:16, said:

Well, if it's annoying, it's illegal because of that (Law 74A2), but I don't think any other law makes it so. I don't think one can infer that he has no other card he can play to this trick. Maybe he has AK and is planning to win the trick and play another to see if partner has petered. Or maybe something else is going on that implies only that he has a good handle on the hand and knows how he wants to defend.

Would it be illegal if he then puts the card back in his hand when he sees what you play?

[blackshoe]

Law 45C1 says "A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick" (emphasis is mine). This defender didn't do that, so he doesn't have to play the card. However, he puts his partner in an awkward position, because now the partner must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of whatever what the defender did tells him — something along the lines of "partner had a choice, and he changed his mind, so what does that tell me he's got?" and then he has to avoid taking advantage (Law 73C). Note that giving UI is not in itself illegal, but using UI is.

[gnasher]

It's a breach of 74B3, isn't it?

[barmar]

Yes, it's a violation of 74B3. Although it's a "should" rather than a "must", and qualified with "as a matter of courtesy", so violations are rarely going to be punished.

I think there are few cases where partner changing his card is going to pass much UI. The most likely case I can think of is when declarer ruffs -- partner's cards in the suit are now known, so the only UI is that he wasn't planning on ducking the trick.

[bluejak]

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-05, 00:17, said:

Would it be illegal if he then puts the card back in his hand when he sees what you play?

If you have played on the presumption he has no choice and suffer because he has an adjustment under Law 73F seems suitable.

[blackshoe]

Only going back a post or two to where this was described as a violation of Law 74B3, I have a problem with invoking 73F, which starts "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law…" so if you're going to invoke 73F you should note which propriety elsewhere in 73 was violated. Of course, maybe that was done upthread and I missed it.

[bluejak]

It is a violation of Law 73D1.