|
This document is provided
courtesy of the
American Contract Bridge League
2990 Airways Blvd.
S
Memphis TN 38116–3847
901–332–5586
S
Fax 901–398–7754
NOTE: to view the latest revision of the
handbook,
download the latest version of
ACBLScore
____________________
LAWSCOM.033 (PAGE 1)
LAWS COMMISSION
KO TEAMS SITTING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
If pairs at one table of a KO match sit in the
wrong directions, that
segment of the match will have to be replayed
immediately (even if
this is inconvenient to the teams) provided
there is enough time prior
to the start of the next session. If time does
not permit replaying
the full segment, then as many boards as can
reasonably be played must
be played. (Laws Commission - July, 1982)
UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION GAINED FROM PARTNER'S
EXPLANATION
In situations where a player gains information
from his partner's
explanation to a question, whether or not there
was an alert, that
information is unauthorized and the director
may award an adjusted
score if advantage was taken. (Laws Commission
- 5/84)
EXPLAINING AN AGREEMENT BEFORE OPENING LEAD
THAT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE
HAND HELD
While there is a legal obligation to correct an
incorrect or
incomplete explanation, care must be taken to
phrase the correction in
such a way as to not mislead the opponents.
The TD may still adjust
the score because of the original failure to
alert or explain
correctly at the proper time by the proper
person when an opponent is
misled even though the player is mandated by
Law to correct the
explanation. (Laws Commission - July, 1995)
LAW 12.C.1 - AWARDING AN ADJUSTED SCORE
The Laws Commission feels that the phrase "at
most 40% of the
available matchpoints" should refer to a pair
being awarded the
remaining matchpoints when they have committed
an offense against a
pair whose percent score is greater than 60%
(i.e., Top minus 63% of
Top when the non-offending side has achieved
63% on all other boards
played). (Laws Commission - Spring, 1998)
NOTE: Therefore, our practice will be to reduce
the A- appropriately
when the A+ turns out to be in excess of 60%.
This will only be the
practice in pairs events, not individual
events.
(Office
Policy - April, 1998)
Comment: There is a consensus that the
irregularity referred to in
12C2 may include the event that transmitted the
unauthorized
information. (Laws Commission - Fall, 2003)
LAW 21 AND OTHERS - MISINFORMATION
It happens, with disappointing frequency, that
one side is not give
correct information by an opponent. The
incidence is probably greater
during the auction than during the play, so
let's look at those cases
first. This incorrect information usually
comes from:
1. A failure to Alert (or an Alert when none
was due).
2. An incorrect answer to an opponent's
question.
3. A mismarked convention card.
Once this unfortunate situation occurs, what
next? The director
refers to Law 21 B.1, which tells us:
"...a player may, without penalty, change a
call when it is probable
that he made the call as the result of
misinformation given to him by
an opponent...provided that his partner has not
subsequently called."
LAWSCOM.021 (PAGE 2)
____________________
Please note that for one to be allowed to
change a call, there are two
requirements: Partner has not subsequently
called, and the call MUST
HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF THE MISINFORMATION.
You are not allowed to
change your call simply because you were given
misinformation; you may
change it only if you would have made a
different call had you gotten
correct information. If you do elect to change
your call, the burden
of proof that your original call was the result
of the misinformation
may fall upon you -- you are not permitted to
change willy-nilly.
Often, a player wishes to change his or her
call even though partner
has made a subsequent call, but the director
cannot allow that; he
must direct that the auction continue and look
into adjusting the
score if damage appears to have resulted.
It is wise for the director to ask a player who
can no longer change
his call (away from the table) if he would have
acted differently had
he been properly informed. This will provide a
much better basis for
adjusting a score, or for declining to do so,
since somehow our view
of what we would have done often becomes a bit
different when the
entire deal becomes known.
One should not blurt out that one would have
done something different
-- no one at the table is entitled to that
information. If the
director neglects to ask you in such an
instance, you might ask him to
speak to you away from the table. This isn't
perfect, of course,
since even the request to talk with the
director might give
information to partner, but it may prove the
least of evils.
If you change your call (as permitted by Law 21
B.1.), your left-hand
opponent may also change his. Note that is as
far as it can go --
never more than one call from each side may be
changed. Any
information from the withdrawn call(s) is to be
considered
unauthorized for the offending side, and the
director should stand
ready to assign an adjusted score if he deems
that the result has been
adversely affected for the non-offenders.
Just as you may change a call based on
misinformation, you may also be
permitted to change a play similarly based.
Law 47 E.2.(a):
"A player may retract the card he has played
after a mistaken
explanation of an opponent's conventional call
or play and before a
corrected explanation, but only if no card was
subsequently played to
that trick."
Please remember that you must first call the
director before making
any of these allowed changes. Endeavoring to
change your call without
calling the director may prejudice your
position. You must also try
to use discretion in what you say to the table
in these situations
(and many others), since what you say may well
convey information
(unauthorized, for your partner) to others, and
this could well
adversely affect your result and/or your future
rights to redress.
LAWSCOM.033 (PAGE 3)
____________________
LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGE OF CALL
Until the opening lead is faced, the last pass
of an auction may be
changed without penalty if the director deems
that it was inadvertent.
This is also true for the fourth consecutive
pass in auctions when
there has been no bidding. Likewise, the next
to the last pass, if
inadvertent, in both of these situations may be
changed without
penalty. If a player is willing to limit his
score to an average
minus [B.2.a.2], a purposeful change of a final
pass is permitted.
However, if a player attempts to change his
call after the opening
lead has been face, Law 39 (Call After Final
Pass) would apply.
(Laws
Commission - July, 1997)
LAW 27 - BID OUT OF ROTATION
In the auction 1D - no action - 1H when the bid
out of turn is not
accepted, if the player next to call bids 1H
and the player who had
called out of turn changes his call to double,
the low-level double
should be deemed to specify hearts, thus
removing any lead penalties.
At higher levels, the double becomes less
meaningful as an indication
of hearts and may be based solely on high
cards, so the director
should impose a lead penalty in the heart
suit. The commission also
pointed out that the fact that the double was
made with the knowledge
that it would bar partner is authorized
information to the offending
side. (Laws Commission - Spring, 1998)
NOTE: Therefore, our practice will be to treat
these "penalty" doubles
at the one or two level as specifying the suit
and removing the lead
penalty. (Office Policy - April, 1998)
LAW 45.C.4(b) - CARD PLAYED
In making decisions under this Law in the
future, we have the
following instructions from the Laws
Commission.
1. IN DETERMINING "INADVERTENT," THE BURDEN OF
PROOF IS ON THE
DECLARER. THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS
"OVERWHELMING." Unless there is
such proof to the contrary, the director should
assume that the card
called was the intended one.
2. IN JUDGING "WITHOUT PAUSE FOR THOUGHT,"
a. IF DECLARER HAS MADE A PLAY AFTER MAKING AN
INADVERTENT
DESIGNATION FROM DUMMY, A "PAUSE FOR THOUGHT"
HAS OCCURRED. Making
this interpretation has essentially put in a
time limit without
rewriting the law. If declarer has made a ply
(usually a play from
hand but it can be a play from dummy to the
next trick) after an
alleged inadvertent call of a card from
dummy's hand, we are to rule
that there has been pause for thought.
Therefore, we may not permit
declarer to change the play from dummy.
b. IF DECLARER'S RHO HAS PLAYED AND THERE IS
ANY REASONABLE
POSSIBILITY THAT INFORMATION GAINED FROM RHO'S
PLAY COULD SUGGEST
THAT DECLARER'S PLAY FROM DUMMY WAS A MISTAKE,
A "PAUSE FOR THOUGHT"
HAS OCCURRED. If we determine that the play
by declarer's RHO
suggested to declarer that some type of
mistake had been made, the
Commission is saying that this constitutes
pause for thought. As in
a. above, we cannot permit declarer to change
the play from dummy.
LAWSCOM.033 (PAGE 4)
____________________
The Vancouver case is a good example: Had
declarer's RHO played a low
spade or diamond there would have been no
suggestion that declarer had
made a mistake. Playing the king of spades was
such a suggestion.
Therefore, if declarer speaks up after the play
of the king, we are to
deem there has been pause for thought. After
the play of a
non-suggestive card (such as a low spade or
diamond in the above
example), we are permitted (but not required)
to judge that the
correction, or, desire to correct was "without
pause for thought."
While some "equity" oriented players and TDs
may consider this a harsh
line to take, this interpretation brings Law 45
C.4(b) more in line
with 45.C.2. In other words, the requirements
for deeming a card
played from dummy and from declarer's hand are
more similar using this
interpretation.
As in the Laws commission write-up the bottom
line is that there
should be strong presumption that the card
called is the card that
declarer intended to call. (Laws Commission -
Clarified Aug, 1999)
LAW 61 - TIME LIMITS WHEN INQUIRING ABOUT
REVOKES
The Commission addressed the issue of whether a
time limit should be
established on the right of defenders to
inquire about possible
revokes by partner as provided in the footnote
to Law 61. An
interpretation was made that a defender loses
the right to ask such a
question after he turns his own card face
down. They also recommended
that the law itself should reflect this in its
next revision.
(Laws
Commission - Summer, 2003)
LAW 63.B - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE
In determining whether a 1 or 2 trick penalty
is in order, the
director must look to see what would have
happened if the revoke was
not corrected and the hand was played out.
Remember that this
provision does not apply in most ACBL events.
(Laws
Commission - July, 1997)
NOTE: Therefore, our practice will be as per
Law 70.B.3. The director
will hear the opponents' objections with the
defenders or dummy and
declarer being able to confer to suggest an
alternative line of play.
In general, we should not offer lines of play
not suggested by an
opponent. When dealing with the beginner/old
pro situation, however,
one might drop a hint as the Commission did say
"should not" rather
than "shall not", "may not" or the dreaded
"must not".
(Office
Policy - April, 1998)
LAW 70.B.3 - CONTESTED CLAIMS (CLARIFICATION
STATEMENT REPEATED)
When a claim occurs, both opponents (including
dummy in the case of a
defender's claim) have the right to inspect the
opponent's cards and
confer before they acquiesce. If the
non-claiming side can show a
line of play, consistent with the claim
statement, that produces more
tricks for their side, the director should
award them those tricks.
The director should not raise objections on
behalf of the players
involved. (Laws Commission - Spring, 1998)
LAWSCOM.033 (PAGE 5)
____________________
LAW 75.D.2 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
When a player's explanation has correctly
described his partner's hand
but not the pair's agreement, and even though
the partner is required
to correct the explanation before the defenders
make an opening lead,
ACBL policy is that the player should make a
disclaimer statement
before giving the corrected explanation. This
may also be true when
there has been a failure to alert during the
auction. If no
disclaimer is give, the director may treat the
original offense as the
one doing the damage and adjust the board to
protect the
non-offenders. (Laws Commission - July, 1997)
LAW 81.C RECTIFYING AN ERROR OR IRREGULARITY
(BIDS, LEADS, SIGNALS)
The Laws Commission issued some guidelines as
to how Directors should
act under Law 81C:
The Director's duties and powers normally
include the following:
6. To rectify any error or irregularity of
which he becomes aware in
any manner, within the correction period
established in accordance
with Law 79C.
A Director should not prevent a player from
committing an infraction,
such as revoking. However, if a revoke is
established and no one
notices it, the Director should wait until
after the round is over and
then inform both sides what happened. He then
restores equity.
If a Director is called to the table and asked
to give a ruling on,
say, one part of an auction and he discovers an
irregularity in
another part of the auction, he must consider
the auction as a whole
and correct all irregularities.
Another example: If a Director becomes aware
of a pair playing an
unauthorized convention, he must advise them
and follow through to
make sure they do not continue to play it.
(Laws
Commission - March 1988)
LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES
Procedural penalties, either mild or severe,
should be issued when
players depart from accepted procedure.
Usually this would happen
after due warning. When a player steps outside
the bounds of
acceptable behavior, the director may assess
disciplinary penalties in
points or by suspending the participant from
part or all of the
current session. Either penalty may be
appealed, but a committee may
not overrule the director on a disciplinary
penalty.
(Laws
Commission - July, 1997)
|
