[slohand]

While playing in an unsanctioned local club duplicate game, the play emptied two of dummy's suits. During a pause, dummy reached and separated the two remaining suits as they had become slightly ragged. Opponent at that time took exception and reached over pushing the suits back together and insinuated dummy was trying to confuse the opponents as to what trump was. Further, dummy was not aware of their mis-action, if any. Opponent accused dummy of purposely trying to gain some advantage by subterfuge. This created a stir, so I came home and googled the ACBL rules but can find no offending reference to dummy's actions. Beginning with rule 41 on dummy is laid out but no mention is made. I can see everyone's point of view in retrospect but i would like to know the rule if anyone can help. Thanking you in advance. Slohand12

[steve2005]

45 F Dummy Indicates Card
After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not
touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of
arrangement) without instruction from declarer.

Rules didnt say can only arrange dummy at beginning of play. Sanity surely should prevail. Who hasn't rearrange dummy when it becomes messy?

[barmar]

Why would straightening out the cards confuse anyone about which suit is trump? As long as the trump suit is still on dummy's right, there shouldn't be any problem.

[slohand]

Thanks for your logical answers. I am now better educated. Slohand

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-February-19, 09:31, said:

Why would straightening out the cards confuse anyone about which suit is trump? As long as the trump suit is still on dummy's right, there shouldn't be any problem.

Perhaps if dummy no longer has trumps and the adjacent suit is moved right... but even so opponents still missed a good chance to keep quiet.

[PeterAlan]

One matter that is clear is that an opponent touching dummy's cards without permission is in violation of Law 7B3.

[blackshoe]

Steve and Peter are both right.

As declarer, I would have called the director. As director I would have ruled that dummy has done nothing wrong and that the defender has violated Law 7B3 and Law 74A2. The former rates a procedural penalty. If the Zero Tolerance policy is in effect, the insinuation is a ZT violation which requires a disciplinary penalty. So the defense rates to lose half a board in penalties. That may seem harsh, but I'll bet that defender won't make those mistakes again.