[pescetom]

During a tournament yesterday the Declarer pulled the last round of trumps, looked puzzled and then took a peek at his played cards, raising them briefly in a block so that he could see them all at once. I protested and he apologised, we left it there. He then played the rest of the hand effectively, making no concessions to defence.

I wonder what TD would have to say about this in a more serious competition.
Is this peek an infraction under Law 66?
Could/should TD impose a PP under 90B?
Is there any redress due to NOS? Obviously they cannot claim to be directly damaged, but it could be argued that the OS obtained an advantage from the infraction, avoiding a probable mistake due to forgotten cards.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-October-01, 06:11, said:

During a tournament yesterday the Declarer pulled the last round of trumps, looked puzzled and then took a peek at his played cards, raising them briefly in a block so that he could see them all at once. I protested and he apologised, we left it there. He then played the rest of the hand effectively, making no concessions to defence.

I wonder what TD would have to say about this in a more serious competition.
Is this peek an infraction? Law 66B says that declarer can inspect the last card played, but it doesn't state explicitly that he cannot inspect the others.
Could/should TD impose a PP under 90B?
Is there any redress due to NOS? Obviously they cannot claim to be directly damaged, but it could be argued that the OS obtained an advantage from the infraction, avoiding a probable mistake due to forgotten cards.

Reading only a part of a law can result in the strangest deductions:

Law 66 said:

A. Current Trick
So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.
B. Own Last Card
Until his side has led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played.
C. Quitted Tricks
Thereafter, until play ceases, the cards of quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director’s specific instruction; for example, if necessary to verify a claim of a revoke).
D. After the Conclusion of Play
.......

So yes, Declarer's action here was an infraction (of Law 66C) and the information he learned from this infraction was unauthorized for him.

The Director may directly apply Law 90, he may also apply Law 16D, and if he finds that Declarer gained from peeking at his (own) quitted cards he should apply Law 12A1.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-October-01, 07:24, said:

Reading only a part of a law can result in the strangest deductions:

Corrected in OP to avoid confusion, thanks.

pran, on 2018-October-01, 07:24, said:

So yes, Declarer's action here was an infraction (of Law 66C) and the information he learned from this infraction was unauthorized for him.

The Director may directly apply Law 90, he may also apply Law 16D, and if he finds that Declarer gained from peeking at his (own) quitted cards he should apply Law 12A1.

But did Declarer "gain from peeking" if (at the judgement of TD) he probably avoided a mistake that would have arisen due to forgetting the played cards? Because that's about as far as it could go, I think. He made the tricks that could be made with that hand and that a more attentive player would have made without any infraction.

[pran]

pran, on 2018-October-01, 07:24, said:

.....
So yes, Declarer's action here was an infraction (of Law 66C) and the information he learned from this infraction was unauthorized for him.

The Director may directly apply Law 90, he may also apply Law 16D, and if he finds that Declarer gained from peeking at his (own) quitted cards he should apply Law 12A1.

pescetom, on 2018-October-01, 11:30, said:

But did Declarer "gain from peeking" if (at the judgement of TD) he probably avoided a mistake that would have arisen due to forgetting the played cards? Because that's about as far as it could go, I think. He made the tricks that could be made with that hand and that a more attentive player would have made without any infraction.

TD doesn't need to bother about whether or not a player gained anything from a violation (e.g. of Law 66C), the violation itself is sufficient cause for applying Law 90 if TD so decides.

When it comes to Law 12 he must of course judge whether the offender gained anything from his offence, and in this context Law 16D is central here.