Hello  Helene , you have identified the issues exactly ., and there is no  one answer for all cases .

Firsty there is the  consideration of player education , and players do need to  be reminded  to " shuffle ' the cards before returning them to the board AND  the reason for this .

 I do know that at  some of the more social  local club  sessions , players who have time after the playing the hand deliberarely sort the cards into suits again before  returning them to the board as a gesture of courtesy for the next table ! ( I wouldn't like  to insist that they do otherwise ! ).

Although neglecting to shuffle the cards is an infraction.,I would not  consider a procedural penatly (under 90B,),if this occured only sporadically . I would talk to the players involved and  expalin the reason

However , if the same player/s were involved in a similar incident in  the near  future , I would take a much firmer approach and tell them that this must be done ! Thereafter ,deliberate neglect to follow this request would be considerared a penalizabe infraction ,more because of failure to follow the directors request than for the  infraction itself .

The second issue you raise is more  serious in nature :

Did the player who picked up the sorted hand use unauthrised information from this and in contravention of Law 16C make a call to his side's advantage ?

Do we need to prove it ?  Well I guess so , but HOW could we do so ?.    Look into their eyes ?   or perhaps a  lie detector ,?

 If they did actually use this UI, , their come uppance will occur the next time they do so and get a very bad board.,and serves them right too ! 

 So I guess this infraction is self-rectifying ! 

 Their is a additional issue  that according to Law 16C , the player who picks up this " sorted ' hand , should notify the director   of his/her dilemna ( away from tthe table )., The director would then be in a better position  to review any eventualities.

There is no one answwr for all cases , and that is the purpose of Law 81C2- the powers of the director  includes " interpreting " the Laws.

Exactly how you " interpret" the laws in   this situation  would depend , among other things , whether  this occured at a social  club session  or at an  Open Tournament . For an Open Tournament, I might consider "cancelling "the board and giving both sides average plus..( without actually  accusing anyone of using UI )

 Allan 

Hi folks

What I am interested in is:

How can UI (in the form of receiving sorted cards in the board) demonstrably suggest one logical alternative action over another?

Even excluding these possibilities:

It was a particularly interesting hand and the prrevious table had analysed it
or
it had been fouled and could not be played
or
One of the passes at the previous table was an aberration with a perfectly sound opener

A bid could lead to a good contract or a bad one or result in the opponents getting into a contract they would not have otherwise bid which might also be good or bad

A pass could lead to a pass-out or give the next player(s) to bid similar options as above.

It is my view the requirement to shuffle is just a procedural matter, similar to the requirement, when dealing manually, to deal the cards one at a time.

cheers

Nick