The shadings and complexities of a popular game were debated with full philosophical fervour yesterday as the illegal lottery trial of two local bingo promoters continued in Magistrates' Court.

At the heart of the trial, which began on Tuesday, is whether or not the DeFontes Broadcasting Company Ltd. and co-defendant Neil Inchcup were operating a prohibited lottery when they broadcast a series of bingo games over VSB television on October 18, 1994.

Both parties have been charged with violating the 1944 Lotteries Act by televising the so-called Freeport TV bingo games.

Inchcup, a 59-year-old Smith's Parish businessman, is also charged with unlawfully operating a lottery in his Freeport Gardens bingo parlour at Dockyard last October 18 and allowing a multi-purpose room in the Clocktower building to be used for the purposes of a lottery on the same day.

Yesterday, the very essence of a lottery, of the game of bingo and of any differences between the two was meticulously debated as the Crown strove to prove that bingo was a pure game of chance and therefore constituted a lottery and the defence team of Mr. Richard Hector for Inchcup and Mr. David Cooper for DeFontes sought to establish that the game required some degree of skill on the part of players.

In his attempt to classify a bingo winner as a person whose success depended on the random choosing of numbers and cards, Crown Counsel Mr. Peter DeJulio solicited the testimony of Susan Rhodes, a lecturer at Bermuda College in mathematics and statistics.

Characterising herself as an expert in probability, Rhodes backed up Mr.

DeJulio's contention that bingo constitutes gambling, testifying that "whatever game (of bingo) is played -- be it four corners, diagonal/horizontal or the line -- the probability of winning is the same for each player.

"In games like this,'' she continued, "I would say that there is no intelligence or decision-making skills involved. One could say that the game of chess is also a game, but the difference between chess and bingo is that chess involves decision-making that alters the game's outcome.'' "So,'' Mr. Hector demanded during his examination of Rhodes, "you feel then that a monkey could play the game?'' Replied Rhodes: "It could if it had the manual dexterity to mark the card.'' "But a monkey could not receive its prize if it did just that,'' the lawyer persisted.

"No,'' the lecturer admitted, adding that a bingo player also had to call out BINGO at the appropriate time to be successful at the game.

Later in the hearing, the Crown introduced a videotaped sampling of the bingo broadcast for the court to see firsthand. It showed the caller, Mr. Roger Gibson, keeping track of some numbered ping pong balls as they popped out of a machine and making frequent reference to a Halloween bingo party in the Freeport Gardens at Dockyard.

The credit sequence at the end of the videotape also listed Inchcup as executive producer of the broadcast.

After the Crown had rested its case, Mr. Hector made a submission to Senior Magistrate the Wor. Will Francis that Inchcup's name be dropped from the TV-related charge.

Said Mr. Hector: "I submit that my client has no case to answer because there is no admissible evidence that links him with the showing of TV bingo that night.'' Mr. DeJulio, however, disagreed, claiming that Inchcup was linked to the televising of bingo by the presence of the name "Freeport'' in both ventures, by Mr. Gibson's involvement in both enterprises, by Mr. Gibson's frequent reference to Freeport Gardens while on television and by Inchcup's identification as the executive producer at the end of the TV broadcast.

Mr. Francis, who said he required some time to consider the matter, did not specify when he would make a ruling. The trial continues this morning.