|
Exploring
the Laws
Chapter
IV
is the beginning,
defines General Laws Governing Irregularities beginning
with Law 9 'Procedure Following
an Irregularity'.
Once an irregularity
occurs during the bidding, any player is permitted to bring
it to the attention of the table.
What happens next is really up to those present but once an
innocent opponent takes an action then it is probably too
late to do anything about it, Law insists that once attention
is drawn then the director should be called, however, we live
in the real world where many irregularities go unreported.
Even after a failure to call, if any player wishes to call
the director, go ahead, you never know, there may be
some redress available.
Once play starts,
Dummy has a restriction that whilst he may call the director,
he is expressly forbidden to wake up either the declarer or
opponents to the fact that an irregularity has occurred. Should
Dummy contravene this law, then a penalty would almost certainly
be enacted under Law 43,
such penalty is not defined and would most certainly depend
on the directors assessment of the situation.
A common situation
is when a player makes an insufficient bid and when told by
an opponent 'Insufficient' immediately tries to correct it
before any call for the director. The excuse is always that
the player thought that his opponent was inviting him to correct
the call which is seldom the case. In 90% of these
cases the director will rule according to the appropriate
law. Premature correction can prove very costly to the pair
and players are well advised to NEVER change anything
without the director being present.
The right to make
a ruling and assess penalties falls solely on the shoulder
of the director, whilst players may believe they know the
law, I doubt if even 5% of player rulings are totally
correct. Never be coerced by your opponents, however
experienced they appear to be, no one in their wildest dreams
would accept a player ruling in any other sport or game, so
why bridge?
Chapter
9 also looks at both the assessment of penalties together
with the forfeiture of the right to penalise, most of the
areas have been discussed above , however there is mention
if attention is drawn by a spectator. Law
11B assesses or waives penalties based on who accepts
responsibility for the spectator, so if your husband, wife,
or friend decides to kibitz your table, make sure they understand
that one wrong word could jeopardise the right of a penalty
in your favour. What happens if a random spectator sits
down?, imagine the following scenario:
A kibitzer sits at an interesting table watching International
player, North who was playing Standard American. Board 2,
North opens 1C with 17 pts and 3 clubs, kibitzer looks intently
and say's, "didn't realise you played precision!". As you
can imagine, there was a scream for the director. Your ruling,
see if you can find the appropriate law in the rule book.
Law 11 will not help.(Solution
at the end of this article.)
The understanding
of the Laws takes years of experience and careful reading.
The impression of many players is that one learns about revokes,
leads out of turn, penalty cards and calls out of turn, all
the rest of the issues, you look up.
The hardest part
of directing is to know where to find the law you are
looking for, I once set a straightforward directors exam with
every answer requiring both the law number and paragraph with
ancillary laws, where appropriate, the use of Rule Books permitted.
10 questions, 3 hours later, most of the applicants were still
scouring the rule book with many complaining that although
they knew the ruling they couldn't find it.
Law
12 is the authority for the director to award adjusted
scores, providing that, in a given situation, the laws allow
him to do so. There are parameters as to the extent
of any adjustments which are based on whether the board can
be played, whether a result can be determined or whether an
irregularity has resulted in a claim of damage with a request
for adjustment.
In addition, the director is authorised to award an adjusted
score should the laws fail to address a particular situation,
or normal play of a board be deemed impossible or if an incorrect
penalty has been paid.
An example
of impossible play is when three hands are taken from one
board with the forth player taking their hand from a different
board. The bidding sequence is usually hilarious and the misdemeanour
is only discovered when Dummy comes down or the lead is made;
All this in spite of the board being visible on the table
with a hand still in the pocket! A common misconception of
impossible play is when a defender tables all his cards,
mistakenly believing that he is Dummy, this error is covered
under the law of exposed cards and should 'never' be considered
impossible play.
When the director decides that the awarding of an adjusted
score is appropriate, then the first decision is whether to
award an Artificial Score or an Assigned Score. The lazy way
is the former, that is why score sheets often show 60-40's.
Directors are encouraged to try to determine a bridge result
and I believe that the intent of the law is to keep as closely
as possible to true scores.
The directors
scope in assigning a score is limited to awarding an
actual bridge score, whilst an appeals committee has the authority
to vary the assigned score according to the degree of fault
and the assessment of probabilities. In the WBF's recently
published Code of Practice, it is noted that it would
be desirable for the right to vary an assigned score be given
to the Chief Director, thus making decisions more in line
with the thought processes of both directors and players.
There is a growing
tendency to award split scores, the law in assigning scores
makes a recommendation that the score for the non-offenders
reflect the most favourable result that was likely had the
irregularity not occurred, whilst for the offenders, the most
unfavourable result that was probable.
This aspect is strongly recommended whenever directors have
the ability to consult with both other directors and expert
players. This was normally the province of Appeals Committees
who decided cases on the very same basis as is recommended
to directors. Hence, the frequency of appeals should decrease.
This is clearly a step in the right direction.
Solution:
I posed the problem of what should happen after a non-aligned
kibitzer conveyed information to a table during the bidding?
Firstly remove the kibitzer, secondly refer to Law
16B, 'Extraneous Information from Other Sources' and
monitor the table standing by to award an Artificial Adjusted
Score if the information interfered with normal play.
The next two laws
are synonymous and often mixed up.
Law
13 covers 'Incorrect Number of Cards', whilst Law
14 is headed 'Missing Card'.
The cry of "I have 14 (or more) cards" is a not too uncommon
call for the director. In general there will be a corresponding
hand with only 12 (or less), however, it is worth checking
that the 14th card was not left over from a previous board!
After determining that the incorrect number of cards actually
came from the pocket of the board, law considers whether the
cards were looked at, whether any information gained is relevant
and whether any calls have been made before discovery.
Providing the
hand with too many cards is not looked at, then it is easily
corrected, if however, the hand was looked at, then providing
the extra card was deemed inconsequential, play normally resumes.
If however, the card was an honour or if the bidding
has started, the director would probably award an artificial
adjusted score, 60% to a side in no way at fault, 40% to the
side that had the extra card(s). A precaution that should
be adopted by the director is to check at the preceding table
to see whether they played the board in a correct form or
whether they too succumbed to the 'failure to count' syndrome.
You would be surprised at the number of times that not only
did the previous table play it wrongly, but other tables as
well. In such cases, Law requires that each result be cancelled.
More 60-40's or 40-40's. I have known cases where the hand
was dealt 14-12 across the corner and not discovered until
round 8.
Law
14 only comes into force when there is a card(s) missing,
normally left at the previous table, directors have often
been left scratching their heads in bewilderment, being unable
to find any trace of the missing card. Places where cards
have been found include: In other boards, under paraphernalia
on or under the table, in handbags, on laps, being sat on,
in folded convention or personal score cards and even in coat
pockets! This discounts those eaten in a fit of fury!
In the instance when a player calls and even plays a hand
with too few cards, law considers that the missing cards has
belonged to the hand throughout, with resultant penalties
if for example a revoke occurred. Even if the card cannot
be found the same conditions apply.
Law
15 is the directors nightmare, 'Play of a Wrong
Board', occurs either when a pair moves to the wrong table
in a howell, when the wrong boards get moved or if the director
misses the skip round, very embarrassing.
Providing it is caught early enough the damage can be minimised,
the director, within the law, has guidelines, the main objective
is to save the board(s) if at all possible, designate late
plays or allow any completed board to be scored, naturally
providing neither pair has played it before.
Unfortunately,
many times the error is not discovered until much too late,
up to several rounds later, in these instances the expertise
of the director in correcting the movement comes to the fore,
in panic mode, perhaps the best advice to the hapless director
is to redeal all the offending boards treating each as two
boards for scoring purposes, most computer scoring programs
will comfortably handle the problem.
Law
16 is perhaps the most complex of all the laws, here
it requires the director to exercise judgement, diplomacy,
understanding, bridge skill, accusations and a lot more. Headed
'Unauthorised Information' it enters the minefield
of hesitations, expressions, comments, gestures, tones et
al. Newer players believe it has cheating overtones, intermediate
players believe the director is biased towards the better
players, who in turn express surprise that anybody should
question their right to bid what they like, after all they
are the experts!
Many appeals
committees are hoodwinked by self serving confident statements
by expert litigants. The day is not too far ahead when teams
will consist of a 'bush lawyer' to argue their case. Having
said all of this, this law is there to protect the integrity
of the game. Bridge is played with ethics as a high priority
with any suggestion of information gained other than by permitted
means classified as unauthorised.
Bridge Directors are also players in their own right,
they know what goes on through their minds when hesitations
or related issues occur, they too, inwardly swear at partner
for putting them into ethical situations, they too bid on
when perhaps pass is a logical alternative, they've been there
before.
Players should
respect any decision made either for or against them as it
serves no purpose to shoot the messenger, he is only doing
what law requires him to do.
Perhaps Bridge Teachers should spend a lesson explaining what
unauthorised information is all about, directors find it difficult
enough and are often accused of being patronising or seemingly
lecturing.
Law
16 requires players to be aware of table happenings
and to realise their responsibilities when unauthorised information
rears its head. Put in simple terms, a player in receipt of
unauthorised information may not select an action which could
prove to be more successful over another, if pass is a logical
alternate action, then take it, for if the director rules
this to be the case and damage is claimed then adjustment
is a sure thing.
Unauthorised
information comes in many forms, through tempo calls, comments,
expressions, certain withdrawn calls or plays etc. Accidental
unauthorised information is also referred to and players often
find themselves in a no win situation when this occurs, directors
should be sympathetic to requests for adjusted scores when
asked. Law 16 pre-supposes that
any suggestion of unauthorised information is without malice
or intent, it is perhaps worth mentioning when ruling under
this law that this is in fact the case, this just may calm
a player who thinks that he is being accused of cheating,
after all any directors view on the matter is simply his judgement
which often differs from the players opinion, hence the appeal
process.
A great majority of players are of the belief that it is an
infraction to hesitate, nothing could be further from the
truth, any infraction is that of a partner taking an action
suggested by the tempo break. Players should avoid
any remark which could suggest that an opponent cannot now
call or shouldn't have called, leaving any decision or comments
to the director.
The paragraph
headings of Law 16 explain the
appropriate course of action, namely: how 'Extraneous Information
from Partner' occurs, what to do 'When such information is
Given' and 'When illegal Alternative is Chosen'.
For example an accepted practice in the case of out of tempo
calls is for the player to advise their opponents that they
believe this to be so, only if there is a dispute is it necessary
to call the director. At a point in time when a player has
substantial reason to believe that unauthorised information
has been acted on, the director should be called who will
assign an adjusted score if it is considered that damage has
resulted as a direct result of an infraction.
|
 |
General Laws
Governing Irregularities
Chapter IV
LAW 9
- PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY
A. Calling Attention
to an Irregularity
1. During the Auction Period Unless prohibited by Law,
any player may call attention to an irregularity during the
auction, whether or not it is his turn to call.
2. During the Play Period (a) Unless prohibited by
Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an
irregularity that occurs during the play period. (b) Dummy
(dummy's restricted rights are defined in Law
42 and Law 43)
(1) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during
the play but may do so after play of the hand is concluded.
(2) Dummy may attempt to prevent declarer from committing
an irregularity (Law 42B2).
B. After Attention Is Called to an Irregularity
1. Summoning the Director (a) When to Summon The Director
must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
(b) Who May Summon Any player, including dummy, may summon
the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
(c) Retention of Rights Summoning the Director does not cause
a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise
be entitled. (d) Opponents' Rights The fact that a player
draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does
not affect the rights of the opponents.
2. Further Bids or Plays No player shall take any action
until the Director has explained all matters in regard to
rectification and to the assessment of a penalty.
C. Premature Correction of an Irregularity Any premature
correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject
him to a further penalty (see the lead penalties of Law
26).
LAW 10
- ASSESSMENT OF A PENALTY
A. Right to Assess
Penalty The Director alone has the right to assess penalties
when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or
waive) penalties on their own initiative.
B Cancellation of Payment or Waiver of Penalty
The Director may allow or cancel any payment or waiver of
penalties made by the players without his instructions.
C. Choice after Irregularity
1. Explanation of Options When these Laws provide an
option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all
the options available.
2. Choice among Options If a player has an option after
an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting
partner.
LAW 11
- FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALISE
A. Action by Non-Offending
Side The right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited
if either member of the non-offending side takes any action
before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when
the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent
action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty.
B. Irregularity Called by Spectator
1. Spectator Responsibility of Non-Offending Side The
right to penalise an irregularity may be forfeited if attention
is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose
presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible.
2. Spectator Responsibility of Offending Side The right
to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is
first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence
at the table the offending side is responsible.
C. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Penalise
Even after the right to penalise has been forfeited under
this Law, the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see
Law 90).
LAW 12
- DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
A. Right to Award
an Adjusted Score The Director may award an adjusted score
(or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application
of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do
so, or:
1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award
an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws
do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for
the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.
2. Normal Play of the Board Is Impossible The Director
may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification
can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see
Law 88).
3. Incorrect Penalty Has Been Paid The Director may
award an adjusted score if an incorrect penalty has been paid.
B. No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty
The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground
that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe
or advantageous to either side.
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity,
no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial
adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity:
average minus ( at most 40% of the available matchpoints in
pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in
pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus
(at least 60% in pairs ) to a contestant in no way at fault
(see Law 86 for
team play or Law 88
for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need
not balance.
2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned
adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after
an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the
most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity
not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable
result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the
two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints
or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.
3. Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an
appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order
to do equity.
LAW 13
- INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS
When the Director
determines that one or more pockets of the board contained
an incorrect number of cards , and a player with an incorrect
hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the
deal can be corrected and played normally with no change of
call, the deal may be so played with the concurrence of all
four players. Otherwise, the Director shall award an artificial
adjusted score and may penalise an offender. If no such call
has been made, then: A. No Player Has Seen Another's Card
The Director shall correct the discrepancy as follows and,
if no player will then have seen another's card, shall require
that the board be played normally.
1. Hand Records When hand records are available, the
Director shall distribute the cards in accordance with the
records.
2. Consult Previous Players If hand records are not
available, the Director shall correct the board by consulting
with players who have previously played it.
3. Require a Redeal If the board was incorrectly dealt,
the Director shall require a redeal (Law
6).
B. A Player Has Seen Another Player's Card(s)
When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the
board contained an incorrect number of cards and after restoration
of the board to its original condition a player has seen one
or more cards of another player's hand, if the Director deems:
1. The Information Gained Is Inconsequential that such
information will not interfere with normal bidding or play,
the Director, with the concurrence of all four players, may
allow the board to be played and scored normally.
2. The Information Will Interfere with Normal Play
that the information gained thereby is of sufficient importance
to interfere with normal bidding or play, or if any player
objects to playing the board, the Director shall award an
artificial adjusted score and may penalise an offender.
C. Play Completed When it is determined after
play ends that a player's hand originally contained more than
13 cards with another player holding correspondingly fewer,
the result must be cancelled (for procedural penalty, see
Law 90).
LAW 14
- MISSING CARD
A. Hand Found Deficient
before Play Commences When three hands are correct and the
fourth is found to be deficient before the play period begins,
the Director makes a search for any missing card, and:
1. Card Is Found If a card is found, it is restored
to the deficient hand.
2. Card Cannot Be Found If a card cannot be found,
the Director reconstructs the deal, as near to its original
form as he can determine, by substituting another pack.
B. Hand Found Deficient Afterwards When three
hands are correct and the fourth is found to be deficient
after the play period begins, the Director makes a search
for any missing card, and:
1. Card Is Found (a) If a card is found among the played
cards, Law 67 applies.
(b) If a card is found elsewhere, it is restored to the deficient
hand, and penalties may apply (see 3., following).
2. Card Cannot Be Found If a card cannot be found,
the deal is reconstructed as nearly as can be determined in
its original form by substituting another pack, and penalties
may apply (see 3., following).
3. Possible Penalties A card restored to a hand under
the provisions of Section B of this Law is deemed to have
belonged continuously to the deficient hand. It may become
a penalty card (Law 50),
and failure to have played it may constitute a revoke.
LAW 15
- PLAY OF A WRONG BOARD
A. Players Have
Not Previously Played Board If players play a board not
designated for them to play in the current round:
1. Score Board as Played The Director normally allows
the score to stand if none of the four players have previously
played the board.
2. Designate a Late Play The Director may require both
pairs to play the correct board against one another later.
B. One or More Players Have Previously Played Board
If any player plays a board he has previously played, with
the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the
board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and
the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the
contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score.
C. Discovered during Auction If, during the
auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is
playing a board not designated for him to play in the current
round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct
contestants are seated and that they are informed of their
rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins.
Players must repeat calls they made previously. If any call
differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first
auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise, play
continues normally.
LAW 16
- UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION
Players are
authorised 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. Extraneous Information from Partner 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.
1. When Such Information Is Given When a player considers
that an opponent has made such information available and that
damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of
the sponsoring organisation prohibit, immediately announce
that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the
opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute
the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed).
2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen 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.
B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources
When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information
about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking
at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks;
by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging
to another player at his own table before the auction begins,
the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the
recipient of the information. If the Director considers that
the information could interfere with normal play, he may:
1. Adjust Positions if the type of contest and scoring
permit, adjust the players' positions at the table, so that
the player with information about one hand will hold that
hand; or,
2. Appoint Substitute with the concurrence of all four
players, appoint a temporary substitute to replace the player
who received the unauthorised information; or,
3. Award an Adjusted Score forthwith award an artificial
adjusted score.
C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays
A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted,
either by a non-offending side after an opponent's infraction
or by an offending side to rectify an infraction.
1. Non-offending Side For the non-offending side, all
information arising from a withdrawn action is authorised,
whether the action be its own or its opponents'.
2. Offending Side For the offending side, information
arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions
of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the
offending side may not choose from among logical alternative
actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over
another by the unauthorised information.
|
