|
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
ADJUSTED SCORES
IRREGULAR PASSES CAUSING DAMAGE - LAW 23
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
A THIRD EXAMPLE
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT OPPONENTS' AGREEMENTS
TWELVE OR
FEWER CARDS IN DUMMY
PENALTY CARDS
- MAJOR/MINOR
PLAYED CARD
CALLING ATTENTION DURING PLAY TO A CARD TURNED THE WRONG WAY
DISAGREEMENT OVER A CALL (OR CALL OF A CARD IN DUMMY)
LEAD OUT OF TURN
MISTAKEN BID
CLAIMS MADE WITH AN OUTSTANDING TRUMP
MISTAKEN EXPLANATION
MISTAKEN BID/MISTAKEN EXPLANATION
NATURAL NOTRUMP BIDS
WITH UNBALANCED HANDS
REVOKE
TWO LOWER UNBID
SUITS
RULINGS IN TEAM
GAMES
INADVERTENT BID
HUDDLES AND
HESITATIONS
Law 73A
Law 16A2
LOGICAL
ALTERNATIVE(S)
RESPONSIBILITY OF
PLAYERS TO PLAY BRIDGE
THE WONDERFUL LAW
25 B
LAWS.033 (PAGE 1)
_________________
GENERAL
ADJUSTED SCORES
When called upon to adjust a score under Law
12.C.2, you should adjust
to a real score (not an average, average+ or
average-). It should be
a very rare combination of circumstances which
make an artificial
adjustment appropriate.
Here is an example from the Boston NABC:
West North East South
P 1S 2H
P P* 2S 3H
P 4H All pass
*Break in tempo
The table director decided that the 3heart call
was demonstrably
suggested and pass was a Logical Alternative
action for South over
2 spades. Since the auction would have not
ended there (North would
have taken action, then West and/of East
possibly and maybe South),
the director protected to A+.
Once the director has judged to adjust, proper
procedure is to decide
upon likely possible and probably outcomes if
South passes. The
director then selects the most favorable of
these outcomes that was
likely for the non-offending side. For the
offender, the director
selects the most unfavorable one that was at
all probable.
In the above example, the director may have
concluded that 2S, 3H, 3S
and 4H were possible contracts with. Perhaps
3H, 3S and 4H being
likely. If the number of tricks to be taken at
a contract is not
clear, then the director will have to consider
whether each result at
that contract is possible, likely or at all
probable. You could have
a situation where making a contract is not
"likely" but is "at all
probable" while going down one is "likely."
In the above hand, since 3S clearly makes only
three and 4H* was made
at the table; therefore it is judged likely.
The director should
assign +140 to the non-offenders as the most
favorable result likely.
The most unfavorable result at all probable is
also 3S (doubled
contracts were not even "at all probable") so
-140 is assigned to the
offenders.
*While 4H does not make with an alternate
defense, an adjustment to a
different number of tricks in a contract that
was actually played
should only be considered if the contract would
have been doubled or,
possibly, if it was reached on a different
auction.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 2)
_________________
So after an irregularity, when the director is
called upon to adjust
the score steps to be followed are:
1. List the final contracts you think are
possible.
2. Decide which ones rise to the level of
"likely."
3. Select the most favorable one of these
"likely" results and
award the non-offenders. Note that the
result being selected
is the most favorable result from the
body of "likely"
results. If one "likely" result is 40%
and another 50%, the
most favorable of the two is selected.
You would not
automatically select the highest
percentage one.
4. Decide if there is a result or results
not judged "likely"
that is at all probable.
5. If there are any "at all probable"
results, add these to the
results considered "likely" and select
the most unfavorable.
6. Award the result selected in number 5
to the offender.
(Office
Policy - March, 2000)
IRREGULAR PASSES CAUSING DAMAGE - LAW 23
South passes and, before West can call, North
opens 1 spade. The TD
explains the options to East who does not
accept the bid out of turn.
After West opens the bidding, North elects to
pass at his turn. The TD
correctly rules that South must pass throughout
the rest of the
auction. During the play, it is discovered that
North's original
action was a psych. What further action should
the TD take?
Whenever a player is barred from the auction,
the TD should inform the
opponents that, in some situations, they are
entitled to protection if
they are damaged by the enforced pass. LAW 31
(BID OUT OF ROTATION),
like other laws that mandate an enforced pass,
refers the TD to
LAW 23: When the penalty for an irregularity
under any Law would
compel the offender's partner to pass at his
next turn, and when the
TD deems that the offender, at the time of his
irregularity, could
have known that the enforced pass would be
likely to damage the
non-offending side, he shall require the
auction and play to continue,
afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he
considers that the
non-offending side was damaged by the enforced
pass.
In the situation described above, North knew
that it was the
opponents' hand. He held bad cards and his
partner had already passed.
So why not psych? As an added bonus, the TD
barred his partner so
they couldn't get into trouble. It seemed as if
he had discovered the
perfect psych. Unfortunately for North, there's
always a catch. In
this case the TD should rule that North could
have known when he bid
out of turn that an enforced pass might work to
his benefit. If the
opponents were damaged by the "safe psych", the
score should be
adjusted.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 3)
_________________
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
A player who really wants to play 3NT, bids 3
clubs to show a stopper.
The opponents are quick to point out that,
since his partner's last
bid was 4 diamonds, his call is insufficient.
Now he faces a real
dilemma. Five clubs is way too high and 4NT is
ace asking. Then he
hears the TD telling him that his partner would
have to pass any call
other than 5 clubs. 4NT, he cries. It seems too
good to be true and,
of course, it is.
The TD should rule that all the necessary
aspects of Law 23 are
present. In a normal auction the player could
not stop in 4NT and, at
the time of his 3 club bid, he could have known
that this was a way to
bar his partner. If 4NT yields a favorable
result, the board should be
adjusted.
A THIRD EXAMPLE:
A player in third chair with a balanced 16
count opens 1NT out of
turn. His partner is barred and it goes
pass-pass to him. He elects to
bid only 1NT which gets passed out. His partner
puts down a 10 count
in dummy. As it happens, all the cards are
wrong and he makes just two
for a top. In this case Law 23 does NOT apply.
The player had no way
of knowing when he opened out of turn that
barring his partner could
help his side. This is just the rub of the
green and he keeps his good
score.
In all of these examples, the offender was
assumed to act without
malice aforethought. If the TD was convinced
that the player had acted
deliberately to bar his partner, it would be
cause enough to convene a
conduct hearing.
LAW 72.B.2: A player must not infringe a law
intentionally, even if
there is a prescribed penalty that one is
willing to pay. The offense
may be the more serious when no penalty is
prescribed.
(Directions
- January/April 1993)
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT OPPONENTS' AGREEMENTS
The following is an article by Chip Martel
published in the ACBL
Bulletin June, 1996 - This article and the
opinions it expresses are
endorsed by the ACBL Laws Commission and ACBL
management.
Bridge is not a game of secret codes, so Law 20
gives players the
right to ask questions about their opponents'
agreements regarding
bids, leads and signals. These questions can
be asked by any player
whenever it is that player's turn to bid or
play.
Sometimes, however, questions can cause a
problem. Here are three
cases in point:
1. A recent letter to the Bulletin described a
situation where the
letter writer was criticized for asking
about his opponents' bids
after each Alert was made.
2. There have also been problems when the
opening leader leads an ace
and the declarer asks what the opponents
lead from ace-king
despite holding the king.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 4)
_________________
3. A similar situation occurred when the
opening leader asked about
this Blackwood auction:
1S - P - 4NT - P
5C - P - 5D - P
5S - P - 6S all pass
The opening leader was told 5 clubs showed one
or three key cards, and
that 5 diamonds asked for the trump queen. The
leader then asked
about the 5 spade response even though the
asker held the spade queen.
In this column I will discuss some guidelines
for asking questions and
how they apply to these three cases.
There are certain normal types of questions
which can be asked without
anyone's drawing inferences about what you
had. Perhaps the most
common normal question is after an opponent
Alerts a bid. If you want
to ask at your next turn to call, you are
perfectly within your rights
to do so. A second normal time to ask about
the opponents' auction is
at trick one. Before the opening lead, or
before playing to trick one
(as either declarer or non-leader), it is
normal to ask for an
explanation of the auction.
Again, you may make a general inquiry about the
auction, or ask about
any Alertable bids freely. You should be
careful about your
questions, however. Questions such as, "Could
you please explain the
auction?", "Any special agreements about 2
spades?" or "Was 3 clubs
forcing?" are fine.
But it is best not to guess what a bid shows as
part of your question
such as "Was 4 diamonds a splinter?". Looking
at the opponents'
convention card is also a good way to get
information without
suggesting what you are interested in.
As declarer you are free to ask about the
opponents' leads and signals
at any time, but the normal time to ask is at
trick one. Thus, at
trick one you are free to look at an opponent's
convention card or ask
about a lead EVEN IF YOU KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE
OPENING LEADER HAS.
There are two reasons for this. First if an
opponent leads an ace it
would be foolish to have a rule which said that
you could find out if
the opponents lead ace from ace-king only when
you do not have the
king. This would force you to reveal if you
had the king every time
an ace was led! Second, even if you have the
king, you often want to
know whether the leader's partner expects the
leader to have the king.
Third hand's signal on the lead of an ace is
quite different if the
lead usually shows the ace-king than if the
lead denies the king.
If the information if available on the
convention card, it is best to
get your information there. This may avoid
having an opponent infer
something from a direct question.
With ground rules established, we can now
address the three cases
cited.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 5)
_________________
In Case 1 the player was perfectly entitled to
ask about each
Alertable bid as it was made. If you want to
know what the opponents'
auction means as it develops, you must do so.
Case 2 was covered above. At trick one you may
ask about the
opponents' leads without their having any right
to draw an inference
about your hand. Keep in mind, however, that
it is best to ask a
neutral question such as "What does the ace
lead show?" or "What are
your leads?" rather than "Do you lead ace from
ace-king?" YOU MIGHT
ALSO SEEK THE INFORMATION ON THE CONVENTION
CARD.
Similarly in Case 3, after the Blackwood
auction, the opening leader
was perfectly entitled to know what the 5 spade
bid showed (in fact it
was poor form by the declaring side not to have
included an
explanation of 5 spades when describing the
auction). Again, this is
because you are not required to give away your
hand in order to find
out what the opponents' bids mean.
Also, even if you had the queen of trumps you
might be very interested
in the meaning of 5 spades. Perhaps the 5
spade bidder decided to
show the spade queen even though he didn't have
it (or perhaps he made
a mistake). You are entitled to know if the 6
spade bidder thought
their side had the trump queen.
So far, we have been talking about normal
questions. To clarify this,
let's now consider a not-so-normal question.
If the auction starts
one diamond - pass - one heart, to ask about
the one heart bid would
be an unusual question. Almost everyone plays
this auction the same,
and any unusual meaning should be Alerted.
Thus, a question about one
heart at this point would strongly suggest that
you have some hearts
and are surprised by the one heart bid.
If you ask about an unAlerted bid in the middle
of an auction, your
opponents' may be entitled to protection if you
have no reason to ask
about this bid. You may also put your side at
risk by passing
information to your partner by this question.
If, after you ask about
the one heart bid, your partner later chooses a
heart as an opening,
your opponents may be entitled to redress.
This last example raises another important
issue about questions. Any
time you ask a question during the auction or
as a defender you may
pass unauthorized information to your partner.
Asking questions at
normal times usually does not convey
information. If you rarely ask
about Alerted bids during the auction, however,
and then ask about an
Alerted three club bid, you may be telling your
partner you have
clubs.
Sometimes a failure to ask a question may also
pass information. For
example, if an opponent opens a skip bid of two
diamonds, which is
Alerted, and you wait 10 seconds before
passing, but don't ask about
the two diamond bid (or look at the convention
card), you may tell
your partner you have no interest in bidding no
matter what two
diamonds shows.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 6)
_________________
Normally you should ask about an Alerted skip
bid immediately and then
wait 10 seconds after the answer. Thus you do
the same thing both
when you have a problem (and first need to know
what the opposing bid
means, then need some time to think about what
to do) and when you
have a clear action.
It is particularly bad form to double an
Alerted bid without asking or
checking its meaning. This tells your partner
you have such a strong
holding you can double no matter what the bid
means.
TWELVE OR FEWER CARDS IN DUMMY
Law 41D states "...dummy spreads his hand in
front of him on the
table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in
order of rank, in
columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer,
with trumps to dummy's
right..."
In a case where the dummy places 12 (or fewer)
cards on the table and
the defense is injured by not cashing an
obvious card, an adjustment
to equity should be made.
For example, dummy lays down xxxx, xxxx, x, xxx
at a spade contract.
The defense leads the diamond Ace and would
clearly have continued the
suit except for dummy's singleton. The TD
should adjust the score by
that trick or to the score that would have been
obtained with normal
defense had dummy been placed correctly.
(Office
Clarification - January, 1995)
PENALTY CARDS - MAJOR/MINOR
Possibly the least understood change in the
1987 edition of the Laws
is the creation of the "minor penalty card."
For a defender's exposed card to be a minor
penalty card, it must be a
single card smaller than a 10 which is
accidentally exposed. For
example, if a defender pulls a card from his
hand and another card,
the four of clubs falls on the table face up,
that card becomes a
minor penalty card.
It may help to think of such a card as a
"restricted" card, rather
than a minor penalty card -- in effect, there
is no penalty associated
with it , only a restriction on that player's
subsequent play in that
suit. The restriction is a small one. He may
not play another card in
that suit below the rank of 10 before he plays
the penalty card; he
may, however, choose to play an honor card.
There are NO lead
penalties for offender or his partner.
Two points should be borne in mind about
penalty cards. First,
declarer never has one. Second, if partner has
a major penalty card
and you obtain the lead, declarer has the right
to let your partner
pick up that card and then require or forbid
you to lead that suit.
So, if you're on lead and partner has a penalty
card, don't lead
before declarer has a chance to exercise his
options.
(ACBL
Bulletin -- January 1993)
LAWS.033 (PAGE 7)
_________________
PLAYED CARD
The Laws treat a played card by a defender much
differently from a
played card by declarer.
Law 45.C.1 says that a defender's card must be
played if it is held so
that it is possible for partner to see its
face. Note that it is
irrelevant that partner claims to have not seen
the card or says that
he was not looking; the director need only
determine that defender's
partner COULD have seen the card had he been
looking.
Law 45.C.2 says that declarer's card is played
if it is held in a
faced position touching or nearly touching the
table, or held in a
position that indicates it has been played.
The fact that one (or
even both) of the defenders has seen the card
is not germane.
In addition, any player must play a card he
names or otherwise
designates as one he intends to play. A card
from dummy is played if
declarer so designates it, or if he
intentionally touches it other
than to arrange dummy's cards.
Law 46.A instructs declarer to clearly state
the suit and rank
whenever he calls a card from dummy. If
declarer fails to do so, Law
46.B explains the consequences.
One should be aware of the parenthetical clause
in the first paragraph
of 46.B., which states that the restrictions
enumerated later apply
EXCEPT when declarer's other intention was
incontrovertible. Failure
to take this segment into account may cause a
Director to err in
certain situations. Whether the intention was
"incontrovertible" is a
matter of judgement. Note that this same
standard applies to naming a
suit but not a rank, or the reverse - or
declarer's directive to "play
anything." (ACBL Bulletin - January 1993)
NOTE: Directors should be alert to situations
where an apparent
inadvertency is actually an instance of the
declarer thinking ahead,
i.e., calling a card to the current trick that
he really intends to
play to a subsequent trick. For example,
declarer has led his
singleton to dummy's AK of an off suit. He
plans to cash both and take
a pitch from his hand and then play a trump
towards his hand. Before
he cashes the second high card from dummy he
calls for dummy's trump
and then wants to retract it as inadvertent. To
be deemed inadvertent,
a called card from dummy must be solely the
result of a slip of the
tongue and not a momentary mental lapse. Hence,
declarers attempted
changed may not be allowed. (Office policy -
12/2003)
CALLING ATTENTION DURING PLAY TO A CARD TURNED
THE WRONG WAY
At their recent meetings in Toronto, the ACBL
Laws Commission agreed
that it was NOT illegal, to point out during
play that another player
has a trick turned wrong - this is to say that
no law specifically
forbids it.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 8)
_________________
However, they also point out that the practice,
in general, cannot be
considered proper. There are a number of laws
that touch on the
issue. Law 65.C comes closest to the point by
saying that "EACH
PLAYER ARRANGES HIS OWN CARDS in an orderly
overlapping row in the
sequence played, so as to permit review of the
play after its
completion, IF NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE
NUMBER OF TRICKS WON BY EACH
SIDE or the order in which the cards were
played."
This is one of those laws that establishes
proper procedure. No
penalties are mentioned; indeed, a violation is
usually of no great
consequence. If it ever did become a problem
(e.g. a player never
keeps track and consistently argues about the
number of tricks won) a
Director could penalize the offender by powers
granted in Law 90.
Other laws affect only some of the players at
the table:
THE DUMMY:
Law 43.A.1.c: "Dummy must not participate in
the play, nor may he
communicate anything about the play to
declarer", prohibits dummy from
saying just about everything, including that
which has to do with the
way another player's cards are arranged.
However, dummy is allowed to
attempt to stop declarer from leading out of
turn, which might serve
to alert declarer to the fact that he did not
win the previous trick.
(Law 42.B.2: He may try to prevent any
irregularity by declarer.)
THE DEFENDERS:
In the Proprieties, Law 73.A.1 says that
"communication between
partners during the auction and play should be
effected only by means
of the calls and plays themselves." It follows
from this that
partners are not allowed to "communicate" with
one another when they
have a trick turned wrong. A player might, for
example, make a
seemingly innocent comment that his partner has
the current trick
turned wrong and, because of this, partner
could avoid making a
defensive error later in the hand. This is
precisely why such a law
exists. On the other hand, it would be silly
to expect three players
to wait patiently for the fourth player to wake
up to the fact that he
won the last trick. A simple "your lead
partner" would be completely
understandable.
It is hard to imagine an instance in which a
declarer could be faulted
for drawing attention to the fact that dummy or
an opponent had a
trick turned wrong. Of course, if declarer
erred in what he said, he
could be held responsible should an opponent
subsequently misdefend.
The often cited example of a defender cashing
the setting trick to 3NT
after partner wakes him from his reverie with
"we have four tricks
partner" should be dealt with as in all similar
cases: by applying Law
16.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 9)
_________________
(Spider Harris adds the following on turning a
card the wrong way)
It is, in general, not proper to announce that
another player has
turned a card the wrong way. Such notification
might be construed as
a suggestion to partner as to how play should
be conducted thereafter,
such as suggesting that partner take a trick if
he can, or some such.
Certain exceptions might be noted, however. If
declarer tells either
the dummy or an opponent, there can hardly have
been any unauthorized
communication, and a later dispute as to the
result might thus be
avoided. In addition, it will frequently be
alright to call attention
to such a card on the just-completed trick.
This would often serve to
prevent a lead out of turn, or an unreasonable
delay by the person who
does not realize that he won the trick.
A defender or the dummy should be careful about
speaking up, since
such action might affect the result. If the
action may have
constituted the transfer of unauthorized
information, the Director
should consider assigning an adjusted score if
such information was
likely to have influenced the play.
In short, if you are the dummy or a defender,
just leave it alone
until the hand is over. However, it would seem
that declarer can
never be wrong to call attention to anyone else
at the table.
(Directions
- July/October, 1992)
DISAGREEMENT OVER A CALL (OR CALL OF A CARD IN
DUMMY)
When there is a dispute pertaining to a call or
the call of a card
from dummy, it is customary to give more weight
to the "speaker's"
statement.
In cases where there is no evidence to the
contrary TDs should rule in
agreement with the "speaker". This would apply
to cases where it is
2 to 2 or 1 to 1.
Where all the other players (excepting the
"speaker") have given SOME
indication that they thought the "speaker" said
something else, TDs
should rule with the majority.
In cases that are 2 to 1 it is material to
which side the one
abstaining belongs. When the "speaker's"
partner abstains, there
should be a slight tendency to rule with the
majority. When it is a
member of the other side abstaining, there
should be a marked tendency
to rule with the majority.
These are guidelines. Whenever there is
substantial evidence, TDs
should rule with the evidence. Committees have
purview as these
matters are questions of fact. (Office Policy
- November, 1994)
LEAD OUT OF TURN
The Laws define a lead: "The first card played
to a trick." For the
first trick, the "opening lead" is properly
made by the defender to
declarer's left; for later tricks the lead is
properly made from the
hand which won the preceding trick. That all
seems simple enough, but
the matter often becomes quite a bit more
complex.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 10)
__________________
The declarer has many options. He may accept
the lead than then be
either the declarer or the dummy. He may
reject the lead and either
(1) leave it as a penalty card while permitting
the other defender to
lead anything he wishes, or (2) have it picked
up without further
penalty attached to it and require the other
defender to lead that
suit (once) or forbid the lead of that suit
(for so long as the proper
leader retains the lead).
Please note that in the case of a lead out of
turn withdrawn when
declarer either requires or forbids the lead of
the suit by the proper
hand, law 16C2 applies to the defending side.
The partner of the
player who led out of turn may make no play
that could be based on the
knowledge that his partner holds the card led
out of turn if he has a
logical alternative play available to him.
For other defenders' leads at partner's turn,
the declarer has exactly
these same options - except that whether he is
to be declarer or dummy
has already been decided. And, as above, if
declarer either forbids
or requires the lead of the suit led out of
turn from the proper
leader, law 16C2 will still apply.
Declarer's lead from the wrong hand is not so
severely penalized since
he has no penalty cards. When the declarer's
side is properly on lead
and he leads from the wrong hand, either
defender has the right to
accept or reject the improper lead. If either
defender plays to the
lead, it is accepted (but if the defender to
the right of the improper
lead is the first to play, Law 57 gives the
declarer extensive
rights); if either rejects it, the card must be
withdrawn and declarer
leads what he wishes from the correct hand.
Extending all these rights to the defenders may
tax the Director's
ability since there are two defenders each
having two options; whoever
acts first speaks for the partnership, and they
may not consult about
the option to be selected. If both act at the
same time, a play takes
precedence over an oral selection to reject the
lead, or, if both
speak, next in rotation after the irregular
lead "wins."
If the declarer leads when it was a defender's
turn, the defenders'
options are as above, except that if the lead
is to be retracted, of
course the proper defender then leads, rather
than the declarer.
It is important to note that a lead must be
made intentionally -- a
card exposed accidentally, or one inadvertently
played as the fifth
card to a trick, is not to be treated as a
lead. The only time that
intent is not a factor occurs when you, as a
defender, must lead a
penalty card.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 11)
__________________
MISTAKEN BID - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION
Although the subject has been covered in past
articles, there still
seems to be some confusion about the difference
between a mistaken bid
and a mistaken explanation. Part of the problem
stems from the fact
that, on the surface, the two situations are
identical.
Assume that North makes a bid and South tells
East-West that it shows
a certain hand. It later becomes evident that
North's hand bears no
resemblance to the one described by South.
East-West summon the Director and claim damage.
"I would never have
done what I did if he had told me what he
really had!" says East, and
all agree with him. What happens then?
Before a ruling can be made, the Director must
first determine whether
North made a bid that was not in accordance
with his partnership
agreement (a mistaken bid), or whether South
told the opponents of an
agreement which did not exist (a mistaken
explanation). The
legalities of the two are totally different.
MISTAKEN BID
It is NOT illegal to make the wrong bid because
you have forgotten
your partnership agreement. Usually in such
cases, you will reach a
bad contract and get a terrible score. In
other words, justice will
be served. Sometimes, however, you will
stumble into a lucky spot or
the opponents will err because they have been
given the wrong idea
about your hand.
Regardless, the opponents are unlikely to be
due redress for any
apparent damage. Such situations are simply
viewed as the "rub of the
green."
While East may be correct in saying he would
have done better had he
known what North actually had, we must remember
that North's bid
fooled South as well. South did all that is
required by law: he told
East-West what North's bid promised by
agreement. Therefore, there is
NO ADJUSTMENT. Of course, it is understood
that North is not allowed
to take advantage of partner's proper
explanation.
MISTAKEN EXPLANATION
In the above example, if North had bid
correctly according to their
agreements and it was South who was in error
with his explanation,
then East-West would be entitled to
protection. While South can never
be positive about what North actually holds, he
can, and should, know
what North is supposed to have. When the
opponents ask you about a
call for which you have a partnership
understanding, you are required
by law to accurately describe your agreement.
When South fails to
live up to this responsibility, the Director
should give redress for
any apparent or probable damage.
If South correctly informs East-West of his
partnership agreement, it
doesn't matter (legally) whether or not North's
hand matches the
description.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 12)
__________________
Since there is no "penalty" for a mistaken bid,
other than what the
game itself will often extract, a pair may be
tempted to always claim
that the explanation was correct. For this
reason, the Laws instruct
the Director to assume that the explanation was
wrong until the
offending pair can produce credible evidence to
the contrary.
The most common source of such evidence will be
the convention card
-- if what South claims to be the agreement
isn't on the card, his
side will probably lose the case.
If South has given a mistaken explanation, then
North must inform the
opponents at the proper time: After the
auction is over if he is the
declarer or the dummy; after the play is
complete if he is a defender.
If South wakes up later on in the auction and
realizes that he has
misinformed the opponents, he should call the
director immediately.
(ACBL
Bulletin - December 1992)
MISTAKEN BID/MISTAKEN EXPLANATION
It is not uncommon for a Director to be called
because a player's hand
does not fit the description given previously
by his partner. As we
all know, any ruling in these situations will
depend on whether the
bidder forgot (mistaken bid) or the explainer
forgot (mistaken
explanation). The first step for the Director,
therefore, is to
determine whether the pair had an agreement
and, if so, what that
agreement was.
The obvious, and simple, way to discover a
partnerships's agreements
is to look at their convention card. However,
when doing so, the
Director should be careful to avoid some common
traps:
1. Always check to see that both cards are
marked the same. If they
are different, it would tend to indicate
that the pair never had
an agreement.
2. Make sure that whatever is written on the
card applies to the
auction at hand; this is especially
important if there has been
any interference by the opponents.
3. Be very skeptical if a pair claims that they
play a "variation" of
a convention which they have not so
indicated on their convention
card.
4. Remember that if one player thinks their
understanding is "X" and
their partner believes it to be "Y", then
they in fact have no
agreement and any explanation that doesn't
accurately describe
their partner's hand must be ruled as
misinformation.
In 1989 the ACBL Laws Commission suggested that
Directors should
"assume that a mistaken explanation was given,
thus placing the burden
of proof on the offenders." This is, in
general, a good policy in many
ruling situations: protect the non-offenders
unless the offenders can
offer a clear and convincing defense for their
actions.
(Directions - Jul/Oct, 1992)
LAWS.033 (PAGE 13)
__________________
NATURAL NOTRUMP BIDS WITH UNBALANCED HANDS
The following is the response that John Harris
used to answer
questions sent to him on Notrump bidding.
1. The bid of a natural notrump MUST promise a
balanced hand. No
agreement, either explicit or implicit, that
the bid may be made
with an unbalanced hand is legal; also
illegal is any set of
agreements which force certain hands to be
opened 1 NT with
unbalanced distribution.
(Example: A forcing club system with 5-card
majors and diamond
openings promising 3+ may force 1 NT on 4-4-1-4
or 3-4-1-5 hands.)
2. A range of not more than 5 HCP, or two
non-consecutive ranges of 3
HCP, or less, is permitted as a natural
call. Use of a wider
range, or a lower limit of less than 10 HCP,
is defined as a
conventional opening and NO conventions
(including Stayman) are
permitted in responses or rebids. These
limits apply to NATURAL
NT overcalls as well as openings.
3. Point count ranges for natural NT bids above
the 1-level are not
defined, but the restrictions of (1) above
apply.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any
regulation which
prohibits a player from opening (or
overcalling) a natural NT with a
singleton if sound bridge
judgment dictates
doing so. What IS
prohibited is any agreement that such bids do
not promise balanced
hands.
Repeated openings with a singleton by any
player will tend to create
this implicit and illegal agreement with his
partner, and he may be
proscribed from the practice if his reputation
precedes him. Also
forbidden is any set of agreements which force
opening NT without a
balanced hand, as mentioned in (1) above.
It also is not legal to open in NT solely to
show high card strength.
There appears to be little bridge merit, for
example, in opening 1 NT
with
AQJxxx
Ax
x
AQxx
and one would suspect that is just done to show
point count.
When a NT opening hand contains a singleton or
void, the Director
needs to look into the overall system to
determine whether an
infraction has occurred. Petitions such as "I
just felt like it" or
"It seemed the right thing to do" should be
looked at askance, and the
burden of proof that the action was "good
bridge" is on the bidder.
If these tests fail to support the bid, then
the opponents should be
protected from damage. It would be appropriate
to assess a procedural
penalty for violation, particularly if the
offender has a history of
transgressions of a similar nature.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 14)
__________________
CLAIMS MADE WITH AN OUTSTANDING TRUMP
The Director shall not accept from claimer any
successful line of play
not embraced in the original clarification
statement if there is an
alternative normal line of play that would be
less successful.
With Spades as trumps, the lead is in the dummy
and declarer says
dummy's good".
Dummy:
CASE 1: Spades A CASE 2: Spades 2
CASE 3: Spades Q
Hearts A Hearts
A Hearts A
Diamonds - Diamonds
- Diamonds -
Clubs A Clubs
A Clubs A
Defender holds: Spades K
Hearts -
Diamonds AK
Clubs -
In Case 1, no one should have any problem
awarding exactly one trick
to the defenders. Declarer may not play the
ace of trumps to extract
any trump of which he was likely unaware and
the defender will be able
to rough one of declarer's outside aces.
In Case 2, should the Director require that
declarer lead the deuce of
spades first? The argument put forth to
support this position says
that since declarer is convinced that all of
dummy's cards are good,
the Director should shuffle them and randomly
pick the deuce. This
line of reasoning depends on the premise that
all "good" cards are
equal. However it must be clear that trumps
are intrinsically
different and any value that the deuce has as a
trump would be wasted
by leading it. Remember also that the Laws
dealing with claims keep
referring to "normal" lines of play, which
embraces the careless and
inferior play but not the irrational. The only
rational purpose in
playing the deuce is to execute some sort of
squeeze, which clearly
does not apply in example 2 above. The play of
the deuce is not
rational: it can do not good, and may be
harmful.
What then if dummy's trump is the 4? or the 6?
or the 8? Where should
one draw the line?
Consider the third case. Would it be normal
for declarer to play the
queen of spades? If declarer plays out the
hand, confident that his
outside cards are good, he might well play the
queen as a "safety
check" for any overlooked trump. It is
certainly not abnormal for a
declarer to play a "high" trump in these
situations. Thus, the
declarer in Case 3 should be forced to play the
queen since it is a
normal play consistent with his statement of
claim. This is true even
though we would NOT ALLOW declarer to play the
queen if it were to his
advantage to do so.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 15)
__________________
Obviously, Directors will seldom be faced with
the extremes presented
in 1 and 2 above; most situations will fall
somewhere in between.
However, this principle can be applied whenever
the Director rules
that declarer's card is such that it would be
normal to use it to draw
trumps. Some cards are inherently high in
rank: the ace, obviously,
but also the king and the queen. Lesser cards
may also fall into this
category because of the way that play has gone
prior to the claim.
Declarer may falsely believe that a card has
been established because
he thinks he has forced out all of the higher
ones, for instance. The
important point to recognize is that there is a
difference between a
card that is thought good because of rank and
one that is thought good
by virtue of being the last remaining.
Whenever there is an attempt to establish
guidelines, there is a risk
that some will use them in lieu of common sense
or even of law.
Guidelines are not laws, but are intended to
form a basis for
consistency. With this in mind, the following
are given as guidelines
concerning claims:
A. The order of play of non-trump suits should
be the worst possible
for claimer (although play within the suit
is normally from the
top down).
B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any
trumps of which he was
likely unaware, if doing so would be to his
advantage.
C. It is considered a normal play for declarer
to take a safety check
with a "high" trump.
D. Declarer should not be forced to play the
remainder of his trumps
to his disadvantage if both opponents have
shown out of the suit.
(Directions
- July/October, 1992)
REVOKE
I. How to rule when the Director must
determine if a trick has been
won by the revoker with a card he could
legally have played to
the revoke trick. (Please note the law
specifically states,
"legally played". It does not allow the
Director to use his
judgment to determine if the card would
reasonably have been
played.)
1. In the following diagram, declarer leads
the ace of spades and
West plays a heart. Later West wins a trick
with the king of
spades. That trick is awarded to the
non-offenders. Although West
would not have reasonably played his king
under the declarer's
ace, the king could legally have been
played to the revoke trick.
S Qxx
H xx
S Kx
H Jxx
S Axx
H KQ
LAWS.033 (PAGE 16)
__________________
2. There can be a two trick penalty only when
the revoking side wins
two or more tricks from the revoke trick
and at least one of:
a. The revoker wins the revoke trick
(which can only be done by
ruffing);
b. The revoker wins a trick with a card he
could legally have
played to the revoke trick.
3. There now can be a two trick penalty when
the offending side did
not win the revoke trick.
II. Declarer vs. Dummy as the Revoker - If
declarer revokes and if
dummy wins that trick, declarer is not
deemed to have won that
trick for purposes of applying Law 64A 1.
There is still no penalty for a revoke by
dummy. Dummy's revoke is
corrected by restoring equity.
TWO LOWER UNBID SUITS
There appears to be a difference of opinion
among some Directors about
the meaning of "2 lower unbid" on the
Convention Card under DIRECT NT
OVERCALLS. Originally, the Unusual NT was used
to show a minor two
suiter regardless of the opening bid.
A later development excluded opener's minor and
used 2NT to show
hearts and the other minor. If the opening bid
was a major suit, 2NT
continued to show both minors. This is the
accepted meaning of 2
lower unbid.
Of course a pair could use direct 2NT overcalls
to show any two
specific suits conventionally (or one known and
one undisclosed), but
uses other than for the MINORS or TWO LOWER
UNBID would require that
the 2NT bid be alerted.
RULINGS IN TEAM GAMES
In team games, when ONE side is responsible for
an infraction and the
board has not been played at the other table,
the director should make
a ruling or advise the pairs a ruling will be
made after consultation.
Meanwhile, the board should be played at the
other table. Telling (or
asking) the players to reshuffle should not be
an option even if the
situation appears to involve a difficult
ruling. When BOTH pairs or
NEITHER pair is at fault and play of the board
has become impossible
or meaningless, a director can order a redeal
to avoid a shortened
match. (Directions - April 1992)
INADVERTENT BID
There have been several questions about the new
definition of when a
bid is considered "made" using bidding boxes -
especially in how it
relates to law 25A, changing an inadvertent
call.
The new definition removes from the director
the responsibility of
determining intent. In much the same way that
the TD does not need to
consider intent in judging whether declarer has
played a card from his
or her hand.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 17)
__________________
If the director does not consider that a call
has been "made," the
applicable Law is no longer 25 but 16,
unauthorized information.
Therefore, the change in definition should give
the director more
freedom to make a fair and equitable decision
when necessary.
If the bid is considered made, however, the
director will have to
apply law 25. This means that the director must
determine intent
(inadvertency) and whether the correction or
attempt to correct was
without pause for thought. (April, 2001 -
Office Letter)
NOTE: Be liberal in judging that mechanical
irregularities are
inadvertent. However, it continues to be
difficult to justify pulling
a bid in place of a pass, double or redouble as
mechanical. Calls
from different pockets should rarely, if at
all, be judged as
inadvertent. One understandable exception is
placing the double card
out followed shortly with a bid card that skips
the bidding. This
appears clear that the double card was placed
inadvertently on the
table.
HUDDLES AND HESITATIONS
Huddle situations are difficult for players,
directors, and
committees. The following are guidelines to be
applied by directors
and committees as to how such cases should be
handled.
The relevant portions of the Laws that address
these issues are:
Law 16: "Players are authorized to base their
calls and plays on
information from legal calls and or plays, and
from mannerisms of
opponents. To base a call or play on other
extraneous information may
be an infraction of law.
A. After a player makes available to his
partner extraneous
information that may suggest a call or play, as
by means of a remark,
a question, a reply to a question, or by
unmistakable hesitation,
unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone,
gesture, movement, mannerism
or the like, the partner may not choose from
among logical alternative
actions one that could demonstrably have been
suggested over another
by the extraneous information."
Law 73A
1. "Communication between partners during the
auction and play shall
be effected only by means of the calls and
plays themselves.
2. Calls and plays should be made without
special emphasis,
mannerism, or inflection, and without undue
hesitation or haste.
C. When a player has available to him
unauthorized information from
his partner, as from a remark, question,
explanation, gesture,
mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste
or hesitation, he must
carefully avoid taking any advantage that might
accrue to his side.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 18)
__________________
Law 16A2: When a player has substantial reason
to believe that an
opponent who had a logical alternative has
chosen an action that could
have been suggested by such information, he
should summon the director
forthwith. The director shall require the
auction and play to
continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted
score if he considers
that an infraction of law has resulted in
damage.
In applying these provisions, a director (or,
subsequently, a
committee) follows these guidelines in making a
determination as to
whether there should be an adjusted score:
1. Was there unauthorized information present?
If so, then,
2. Could a player have made a call that could
have been demonstrably
suggested by the unauthorized information?
If yes, then
3. Was there a logical alternative call
available that was less
suggested by the unauthorized information? A
logical alternative
is one that would have been seriously
considered by a substantial
number of equivalent players acting on all
of the information that
was legitimately available. If yes, then,
4. Were the opponents damaged through the use
of unauthorized
information?
If the answers to all four questions are "yes,"
the director should
adjust the table result according to law 12.
To examine a typical case, suppose that North
opens one spade, east
jumps to four hearts, south passes after a
marked hesitation, west
passes and north now rebids four spades.
East-west protest. These
are the four issues to be resolved:
1. Was there a hesitation which was undue and
that gave north
unauthorized information?
Most hesitations should be considered undue
when they occur in basic,
simple auctions. For example, a slow pass as
dealer or over an
opponent's one level opening bid would be
considered undue. However,
there are some high level competitive positions
in which it is more
normal (thus less informative) to huddle
briefly than to act in
tempo-that is the point of the skip-bid
warning. If East did give the
skip-bid warning, a 10 second huddle by South
is obviously far from
undue (a pass in tempo would be undue haste).
And if East gave no
warning, a normal hesitation by south is not
undue. However, an
agonized 30 second trance would be undue,
regardless of whether a
skip-bid warning was given.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 19)
__________________
2. Did north make a call that could have
demonstrably been suggested
by the huddle when he bid 4 spades?
If an overwhelming majority of north's peers
would have made the same
call without the hesitation, then he has no
logical alternative to the
action he took even if a small minority of his
peers might have
actually passed or doubled. If a substantial
minority of his peers
would choose to pass or double, there is a
logical alternative even
though more than half of his peers might choose
to take the action he
did. The question is not whether it is logical
for north to bid 4
spades, but whether it would also have been
logical for him to do
something else.
3. Could south's slow pass suggest north's 4
spade bid over some
logical alternative?
The answer to this question is likely to be YES
if Pass was an
alternative. The fact that south had something
to think about makes
it more attractive for north to choose action
over inaction. In
contrast, if north is so powerful that his only
logical alternative to
4 spades are other bids or double, then the
answer is likely no -
south's huddle indicates he has some values,
but not necessarily in
spades.
4. Were east-west damaged by the infraction?
If 4 spades made, or if it was a good
sacrifice, usually YES.
However, if north's hand was so huge that his
alternative to bidding 4
spades was doubling, certainly not passing, and
if 4 hearts doubled
would have been set more than the value of
north-south's game, then,
there was no damage. If 4 spades went down
when 4 hearts would also
have been set by routine defense, again, there
was no damage.
Some Common misconceptions about huddles are as
follows:
1. North is barred by partner's slow pass
unless he has 100% action.
FALSE! South's hesitation, if it was undue,
restricts north's
options, but only when alternatives are logical
and then only in
respect to those alternatives that could be
suggested. So north is
often entitled to act.
2. North may bid 4 spades so long as he did not
base his decision on
partner's slow pass.
FALSE! Committees should pay scant attention
to testimony such as, "I
always bid in auctions like this", or " hardly
noticed south's huddle
- I had already made up my mind to bid 4
Spades."
It is not that these statements are
self-serving and unverifiable-the
real point is that they are IRRELEVANT. The
issue is not whether the
slow pass suggested the 4 spade bid to this
particular north, but,
whether, to north players in general, the
hesitation COULD make the 4
spade bid more attractive than a logical
alternative.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 20)
__________________
3. After south's slow pass, north may not take
a doubtful action.
FALSE! North will commonly be faced with a
choice among a number of
reasonable options, all of them doubtful. The
rules of bridge require
that north do something at his turn-every one
of his options cannot be
illegal. The illegality is for north to select
a particular option
that could be suggested over another by
partner's huddle.
4. North may bid 4 spades if that would have
been reasonable action
had partner not hesitated.
FALSE! The issue is not whether 4 spades was
reasonable, but whether
any alternatives were.
5. North may not make a risky 4 spades bid,
which could result in a
huge set when South has nothing, now that
the huddle tells him
that south has something.
FALSE! Even if the 4 spade bid would be
disastrous one time in three,
there may be no logical alternative to it. The
test is not whether
the bid would be successful an overwhelming
proportion of the time,
but whether an overwhelming proportion of
players would choose to run
the risk.
6. The director's decision (or the committee's)
to bar north's 4
spade bid, to adjust the score, in effect
convicted north-south of
being unethical.
FALSE! What the director found was that
north's 4 spade bid was a
technical irregularity, like a revoke. It
adjusted the score to
redress possible damage from that irregularity,
just as it would take
away a trick or two had north revoked. In
hesitation cases, directors
should be concerned not with crime and
punishment, but with damage and
redress.
LOGICAL
ALTERNATIVE(S)
The ACBL Laws Commission has been asked for an
interpretation of the
phrase "logical alternative" as used in law
16. A logical alternative
is a call that would be seriously considered by
at least a substantial
minority of equivalent players, acting on the
basis of all the
information legitimately available.
Suppose that west is dealer at favorable
vulnerability. He opens 4
hearts, north and east pass and south holds
S AQ10763 H 94 D Q106 C 74.
Let us assume as "bridge fact" that most
players would consider it
wrong to reopen with four spades, but that many
would be tempted to do
so. Then, both pass and four spades are
"logical alternatives."
Thus
CASE A: North took only a few seconds to pass
over four hearts,
although west announced a skip bid.
Furthermore, while south
was considering his actions, north
impatiently detached a
card from his hand as if to lead it.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 21)
__________________
All this could reasonably suggest a pass to
South. And South did
indeed pass, which was just as well for him
since north happened have
a near Yarborough. South later explained to
the director that he
would never bid with a hand like that. He said
he took his normal
action by passing. In this case, the director
should adjust the score
to 4SX, down 1100 if that was likely. Rule that
way even if believing
South's explanation completely. What matters
is not that South would
have bid in the absence of unauthorized
information, but that four
spades was a logical alternative
contraindicated by north's tempo and
gesture.
If the director believes that south may have
taken deliberate
advantage, he should impose additional
procedural penalties for
violation of law 73C.
CASE B: North pondered for 30 seconds over four
hearts, and asked
east how weak in high cards west could
be, then passed.
South reopened with four spades,
successfully as north had a
good hand. South later explained that
he had made up his
mind when west opened that he was
always going to bid four
spades.
In this case, because a pass to four hearts was
contraindicated by
north's tempo and questions, adjust the score
to the result for four
hearts passed out. If it was at all likely
that four hearts would
make, assign that score. If it was likely that
four hearts might go
down one or two depending on the lead, assign
the most favorable
result that was at all likely for east-west.
If the outcome is in
doubt, the director may assign non-matching
scores for both sides.
For example, he might rule four hearts making
for north-south, four
hearts down one or two for east-west.
RESPONSIBILITY OF PLAYERS TO PLAY BRIDGE.
At the 1992 Indianapolis NABCs, the ACBL Laws
Commission reaffirmed
the position that in order to fully protect
their rights, bridge
players are under an obligations to play at a
reasonable level
commensurate with their expertise. A serious
misplay can be cause for
a player to have to accept a bad score that was
actually achieved even
though the offender's score should be
adjudicated.
The positions that any result achieved after a
to-be-disallowed action
is not to be considered (because the
non-offenders should never have
been a position to commit the egregious error)
was declared invalid.
When the director decides that there has been a
violation of law
resulting in damage to an innocent opponent, he
shall adjust the score
using the guidelines of law 12C2, which states,
"When the director
awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a
result actually
obtained after an irregularity, the score is,
for the non-offending
side, the most favorable result that was likely
had the irregularity
not occurred, or, for the offending side, the
most unfavorable result
that was at all probable."
LAWS.033 (PAGE 22)
__________________
For example: S T3
H J6
D AKJ4
C KQT52
S A54 S Q9876
H Q7 H T542
D T8 D 976
C J97643 C 8
S KJ2
H AK983
D Q532
C A
N E S W
P 1H P
2C P 2D P
3D P 3H P
4C P 4H P
5D* P 6D P
*Noticeable hesitation
P P P
East/West called the director after 6D bid
following the hesitation.
The director instructed that play should
continue and after South made
the slam, ruled the contract to be 5 diamonds
making six. North/South
appealed.
The committee upheld the ruling, reasoning that
South's bidding had
shown considerable extra values and North had
suggested that 5
diamonds was the proper contract. The
committee felt a significant
minority would have passed over 5 diamonds.
However, during their
questioning, they learned that South had
misplayed the contract and
East could have beaten it. After determining
how the play went, the
committee judged that East should have known he
could ruff a trick to
set the contract and failed to make an easy
play (for his level of
expertise) by not ruffing.
The committee ruled that north-south can not
bid 6 diamonds after the
hesitation but that east-west had a clear shot
to set the contract
which they failed to do only because of their
own carelessness.
Therefore, the most favorable result for
east-west was in fact 6
diamonds properly defended and the most
unfavorable result for
north-south was five diamonds, making six. The
final ruling was to
score east-west minus 920, the result at the
table. For north-south,
plus 420, the presumed result of a five
diamonds contract.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 23)
__________________
THE WONDERFUL LAW 25 B
The following was taken from the ACBL Bulletin:
Before getting into law 25, everyone should be
aware of the definition
of when a bid is considered made using bidding
boxes. A great part of
the intent of the change was to enable the
director to apply law 16
rather than 25. The definition from Appendix G
is, "Players must
choose a call before touching any card in the
box. A call is
considered made when a bidding card is removed
from the bidding box
and held touching or nearly touching the table
or maintained in such a
position to indicate that the call has been
made." So, if you rule
that no call has been made, you should apply
law 16. Law 25 should
only apply when it is ruled that an original
call has been made
according to the definition above.
You are called to a table. You determine that,
1) a call was made; 2)
that there was a desire to change it or it was
changed; and 3) law 25
B applies.
The only way to make that final determination
(that 25 B applies) is
that the call was intentionally selected (i.e.,
it was not
inadvertent) and the player's LHO has not
called.
1. If the first call was insufficient, we get
to leave law 25 for the
more pleasant environment of law 27.
2. If both calls are legal, LHO may accept the
second call as legal
and the auction proceeds without penalty.
3. If by some chance LHO has made a call over
the first call, then the
second call stands without penalty but law 16C2
applies. LHO may
then withdraw his call without penalty.
Onward to see how to proceed if LHO does not
condone the change or has
not called.
4. The second call is canceled.
5. If the first call is illegal, the offender
is subject to the
appropriate law and law 26 may apply to the
second call.
6. If the there were two calls made and the
first call is legal, the
offender may elect to have the first call
stand. In this case, the
offender's partner must pass at his next
opportunity and the director
may apply law 23.
7. If the offender does not want to let the
first call stand or wishes
to make a purposeful correction if he has not
already done so, the
offender may make any other legal call. In this
case, the offender's
withdrawn call may not be used as a basis for
subsequent calls by the
offender's partner and the offending side may
receive no score greater
than an Average Minus.
The non-offending side receives the score
obtained at the table. The
only time they may not receive the score at the
table is if the
partner of the offender is judged to have based
a call on the
offender's withdrawn action.
*** This law is intended to enable a side to
recover somewhat from a
mis-bid which although intentional was based
upon a brain hemorrhage.
LAWS.033 (PAGE 24)
__________________
Except for knockout play, there may be two way
scores. In knockout
play only, there must be one result. Therefore,
a two-way adjustment
in knockout play (see Law 86 B) is accomplished
by calculating each
contestant's (team's) score separately and then
averaging the two IMP
scores. In using this method along with 25B,
the non-offender's IMP
score is determined by comparing the result at
the table of the
irregularity with the other table's score. If
this comparison gave
the offending side more than minus three IMPs,
the director awards
the offending side minus three IMPs as their
score. The director than
averages the two scores (the minus three and
the IMPs scored by the
offending side using the obtained results).
This averaged score
becomes the result for each team (plus or minus
as appropriate).
8. As with most withdrawn calls, law 26 applies
if the offender's side
are defenders.
If a player chooses to make an intentional
change of call, his side is
limited to an average minus: no better than 40%
of the matchpoints
available. The non-offenders will keep
whatever score they achieve on
the board.
Example: a player changes a pass to a 4 heart
call and makes 5 (+650)
1) Matchpoints: if +650 is worth 9 out of 12
matchpoints; the
offending side would be adjusted to 4.8 (Ave-)
while the non offenders
would keep -650 for a score of 3. If +650 were
worth 3 matchpoints
(less than Ave-), then both sides would keep
the score achieved at the
table. To enter this result with ACBLScore,
the TD should hit S
(special) and post Q65+ for the offenders and
65- for the non-
offenders.
2) Swiss Teams: if at the other table, the
offending pair's teammates
beat 6 hearts for +100, then the non-offenders
would lose 13 IMPs
(-750) and the offenders would be adjusted to
Ave- (-3 IMPs). This
could result in a two-way result; i.e., the
offending side might win
the match by 10 IMPs while the non-offenders
are losing by 23.
Obviously the TD should assist the teams in
scoring and reporting the
result.
3) Knockout Teams: since we need to produce one
and only one winner in
the match, the different results must be
averaged for both teams. In
the example above for Swiss, where the
offenders are -3 IMPs and the
non-offenders are -13 IMPs, the net result
would be the average of -3
and +13. That is (13-3)/2 or 5 IMPs to the
offending side and -5 IMPs
for the non-offenders. Once again, the TD
should be available to the
two teams when they are comparing. |
