A Player's Guide to the Changes in the Laws
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A player’s guide to the changes in the laws A new version of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge will take effect in September. Here is what you need to know about the changes. As a player, you may be asking able ( i.e., believes what impact the changes in the laws there was no break in have upon you. The answer is, as tempo), the director usual, very little. This is because the should be called im- changes deal with restoring equity mediately. when there has been an irregularity. In Laws 17–21, There have been no changes of the again most changes, basic rules or laws — e.g., scoring if any, are in wording is unchanged and the ranks of the and organization. In denominations are the same. Law 20, however, One overall change in wording is some current ACBL reflective of the original intent of the practices and proce- laws to “redress damage and not to dures have been codified or clarified not unintended, it stands unless the penalize.” To emphasize this intent, and should be noted: caller’s left-hand opponent accepts the laws now use the word penalty an attempt to substitute another call. V A player may not ask a question only in reference to procedural and Law 16D applies to the call that was (at the appropriate time) solely disciplinary penalties. In all other withdrawn: Knowledge of the with- for partner’s benefit. cases, the Laws use the word “rectifi- drawn call is unauthorized for the cation.” V If your partner asks a question offender’s partner. There was a global attempt to at his turn to call or play, you Law 26 has no changes that affect reorganize laws or sections of laws to may not ask a supplementary current application of the laws. put the sections of law dealing with a question until it is your turn. Under Law 27, which addresses topic in one place. However, the num- V Declarer’s first turn to play is insufficient bids, a player who makes bering system remains intact — there from dummy except when ac- a natural insufficient bid may still are still 93 laws and the general topic cepting an opening lead out of make it sufficient at the lowest suf- of each is unaltered. turn. ficient level without any bidding The changes in Laws 1–15 will not restriction on partner. be noticed by ACBL players. Many Law 22 now defines the time Law 27 has been amended such of the changes are in wording and between the end of the auction and that the director may permit an insuf- organization. Of the content changes, the end of the auction period as the ficient bid to be corrected, without most only codify and clarify current clarification period. This is the time rectification/penalty ( i.e., bidding ACBL practices. when questions can be asked before restriction), by another call that has, While Law 16 has been reorganized the opening lead is made and faced. in the director’s opinion, the same and reworded, there is only one In Laws 23 and 24, there are no meaning or a more precise meaning. change affecting ACBL procedures changes that affect current applica- For example: 2NT – Pass – 2 L and current practice. Under the tion of the laws. (over 1NT this is a transfer to hearts), revised law, when an opponent has Law 25, Changes of Calls, has been the 2 L bid may be corrected to made extraneous or unauthorized substantially changed by deleting the 3L without a bidding restriction information available ( e.g ., an unmis- current “purposeful correction” op- (rectification) on partner if the 3 L takable break in tempo — hesitation), tion. Under the revised law, if a call bid is also a transfer to hearts. How- an ACBL player may announce that is deemed unintended (inadvertent), ever, part D of Law 27 allows the he is reserving his right to call the di- it may be changed if done without director to assign an adjusted score rector later. If an opponent disagrees pause for thought. This is identical to if without the insufficient bid the that unauthorized information might current law. outcome (result) may well have been have been conveyed or made avail- The new part is that if the call was different and the non-offending side 20 Bridge Bulletin Law changes was damaged. Also, the withdrawn specifically stated in Law 54 (with part wording and organizational 2L call is regarded as unauthorized reference to Law 24), however, changes that lead to more specific- information, but this will rarely that an opening lead by declarer or ity and clarity. However, in the laws matter because the legal 3 L replace- dummy may not be accepted. dealing with claims there are some ment conveys essentially the same Law 64, Procedure after Establish- things to note: information ment of a Revoke, has two significant V While Law 68 mandates that One major caution: If you make changes. play cease immediately when an insufficient bid and an opponent V There is a return to the fairly a claim is made, Law 70 gives brings it to the attention of the table, simple one- and two-trick pen- the director the option of using do not do anything until the director alty (rectification) of the 1973 play after a claim as evidence of arrives. If you change your call prior Laws — i.e., generally, if the players’ probable plays. to the director’s arriving, unless the revoking player won the trick on V Law 69D2 now addresses de- opponent next to call accepts your which the revoke happened and fenders’ claims. original insufficient bid, you will the offending side won another V be stuck with that call (the changed, subsequent trick, the non- A section of Law 70 gives sufficient one) and the director will offending side gets two tricks. ACBL the authority to deter- apply the correct section of Law If the revoking player does not mine an order of play of the 27 — i.e., if the change requires your win the revoke trick and the remaining cards in a suit when partner to pass for the remainder of revoking side wins some subse- such was not clarified in the the auction, that will be the director’s quent trick, the non-offending statement of a claim. Presently, rectification. So wait until the direc- side gets one trick. However, for example, directors generally tor arrives and explains your options part C requires the director to rule that declarers, in leading before correcting the insufficient bid. restore equity on deals where trumps from their hand or Laws 28–39 have no changes that the non-offending side would dummy, lead from the top down. affect current ACBL application and have won more tricks without This will probably be codified procedures. the revoke, even after taking by regulation prior to imple- Law 40 has been extensively into account the additional trick mentation of the Laws. reworded and reorganized. However, or tricks awarded in accordance Laws 72–91 contain a great many there is little change to current ap- with part A of this law. wording and organizational changes. plication and practice. There are two In addition, many sections of the V When each side has revoked, items of note: 1997 laws have been incorporated there is no rectification (pen- into earlier laws in the 2007/8 ver- V The law in the ACBL is now alty) for either revoke — sort of sion. However, none of these explicit in prohibiting pairs, by offsetting infractions. However, introduces any significant changes or prior agreement, to vary their the director is required, under different applications or practices. methods dependent upon and part C, to adjust the result to Law 92, Right to Appeal, has a following a question asked, that result that was most likely slight change. Under the present response to a question or an had neither revoke occurred. irregularity ( e.g., after an insuf- law in a pairs contest, an absent pair ficient bid). The revised law 65 now addresses member is deemed to concur. In specifically the matter of drawing at- the revised law, both members must V In the ACBL, a player is tention to the fact that a card has been actively agree to lodge the appeal. If permitted to consult his op- incorrectly pointed — i.e., indicating not, the appeal is not heard. ponent’s convention card at his that the player’s side had won the Law 93 was modified quite a bit right-hand opponent’s turn to trick when, in fact, they had lost the in part C, Further Possibilities of call ( i.e., after his partner has trick, or vice versa. While declarer Appeal. However, ACBL has already called). This is permitted be- may require that a card incorrectly approved legislation about further cause many times it is necessary pointed be corrected at any time, appeal. That regulation states that a to know what your left-hand dummy’s or either defender’s right to further appeal may be made only on opponent’s call means to de- do so expires when a lead is made to a point of law to and at the discretion termine whether to Alert your the next trick (the one immediately of the ACBL Laws Commission or, partner’s call or to know what after the one on which the card was on an allegation of bias of a commit- your partner’s call means in incorrectly pointed). If done later tee member or members, to and at order to fully explain its mean- than that by dummy or a defender, the discretion of the ACBL Appeals ing.