Cards inadvertently exposed

Vlad

Law 50 states: ' A card prematurely exposed (....) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (....).'

In the WBF Laws committee meeting in Philadelphia on 8th October it was stated that when a spectator 'pushing past' a table stumbles into a player, the Director is empowered by Law 50 to designate that the exposed cards are not penalty cards.

Fine, but what about the information that the partner gets from seeing these cards. Is it AI or UI? If it is AI then this pair gets an unfair advantage and if it is UI then the pair may be dis-advantaged because the partner would be subject to the limitations which accompany receipt of UI.

How should the TD decide?

Robin_BarkerTD

I think the technical answer is to rule that the information is extraneous (Law 16D), if the information affect normal play of the board, both sides get a good score. In a decent club, the answer is 60/60 and the spectator buys the drinks.

We usually use 'unless the director designates otherwise' when the declaring side have done something which induces the exposure of the 'non penalty' card.

White Book 8.50.4

There is no limit in the laws on the ability of the TD to designate otherwise and it can be applied whenever the other side has contributed to the situation that has led to the card becoming a penalty card.