Exploring the Laws

Chapter VI

The Play, Part 1, The Procedure.
As for the auction, it is important to detail the correct procedure of the play, this area covers 5 laws starting with Law 41 'The Commencement of Play'.

As was discovered earlier, the end of the auction period is when the opening lead is faced, the procedure is for the correct defender to lead face down, with retraction only permitted with the directors permission, which will be given if an irregularity has occurred such as a correction to an explanation, or if it is not that defenders lead.

Reference to law 45 'Card Played' may be appropriate in case of a request for change due to either an inadvertent play or whether , by definition, the card was actually led. An important aspect of the requirement to lead face down is to give an opportunity for partner to ask questions without the suggestion of influencing a lead at that turn. As a side benefit, it stops a lot of opening leads out of turn occurring with the frequency of calls for the director for this infraction dropping from around 20% of calls to about 5%. Once this period has elapsed, the opening lead is faced and play commences.

Throughout the play, declarer and the defenders are allowed to find out what the final contract is, sometimes easy to forget in the heat of battle. Within this law is the hard to find requirement for Dummy's hand to be put down, in suits, in order of rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards Declarer with trumps on the right. This procedure whilst seen as dictatorial, certainly resolves a lot of disputes.

Law 42, Dummy's Rights. Dummy plays an important role during the play, it is wise to stay at the table as there are many functions that need to be attended to. In addition to easing Declarers stress, the law gives Dummy certain absolute rights in addition to qualified rights which are retained providing he complies with the requirement of Law. The absolute rights, which can never be taken away, are:

Whilst these rights do not appear to be that important, a side benefit is should the director be called over disputed tricks, he will most likely refer to Dummy's positioned cards as they are more likely to be correct with less distractions creating errors in placement.

The Qualified rights, which remain for the most part, are:

Dummy is NOT permitted to question Defenders, over possible irregularities, is NOT permitted to draw attention to other irregularities, is NOT permitted to tell declarer that he has a trick pointing in the wrong direction and is NOT permitted to initiate a call for the Director. A violation of any of the above would be referred to Law 90, 'Procedural Penalties'. This does not automatically mean a score penalty, it is the authority for the Director to impose such in the case of persistent flouting of instructions to the contrary.

There are more serious acts that can be committed by Dummy, these carry specific penalties. They are:

Penalties are, in addition to procedural ones: If he warns Declarer not to lead from the wrong hand, Defenders may select which hand leads. Any query re failure to follow suit establishes a revoke if applicable with the trick having to be corrected. Drawing attention to an irregularity of a defender cancels any penalties, however equity is still the name of the game and the Director should adjust if damage occurs.

Law 44, 'Sequence and Procedure of Play' reinforces what all bridge players know when it comes to leading, following suit, inability to follow suit, who leads to the next trick etc. No need to comment further.

Law 45 'Card Played'. This law defines for the Director how and when a card is played, the procedure again resolves a lot of arguments whilst the definition of when a card is deemed played assists in the determination of claims that a card was seen/on the table/held in the air etc as to whether the director rules it as 'Card Played'.

Law 45A deals with the play of a card, stating that it should be detached from the hand and faced on the table. Any dropping or accidental facing of a card is dealt with elsewhere.

Law 45B states the correct procedure when playing from Dummy and whilst it requires Declarer to only name the card, leaving the placement to Dummy, there is an out, giving the Declarer the right to pick up the card himself. It does state that playing Dummy's hand should only be done when necessary, yet I have never had an objection when Declarer plays Dummy as a matter of course. The requirement to name the card is far to frequently ignored, players risk claims of Dummy involvement or worse still, a misunderstanding as to which card was intended, when lazily calling 'Spade' or 'Hit it', or 'play' or 'whatever'. Much better all round to actually name the card.

Law 45C identifies the point in time when a card is deemed played by each of the three participants at the table. For the Defenders, when a card is held in any position that partner could have seen its face, the fact that the Declarer saw it is not the criteria . I always liken the claim of the position of the card to that of a fisherman trying to convince his audience as to the size of his catch, in regard to the angle that the card reached in the air. One side claiming 90 degrees, the other 20. I am pretty sure that by bisecting the angle will give a realistic answer. Claims also include 'I never saw it', 'I wasn't looking', again irrelevant, generally means the player saw it was a disastrous play.
Only the director can resolve the whether law considers the card played. For the Declarer, card must be played when held face up, touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position as to indicate it has been played. I have used the actual wording of the Law as each word is relevant. The Declarer is in a slightly better position than a Defender because no information arising can be of benefit to his side. In the case where the director is asked to determine 'Card Played' I believe that an intended play is more likely to conform with the definition above, whilst an inadvertent play is more likely to succeed in a request for a change. For the play from Dummy, a card once deliberately touched with intent, named or otherwise designated is deemed played, there is an out if a clear inadvertency is apparent, with a change permitted to the intended play should this be appropriate. No change of mind would be considered, the example often given is when leading towards AQ in Dummy and calling the queen before noticing the King appearing on his left. An attempted change, however quick, would not meet with success. To complete the picture, any penalty card may have to be played, subject to Law 50 'Disposition of Penalty Card'

Law 45 continues with 'Card misplayed by Dummy'. There are times when Dummy mishears Declarers instructions and plays the card he thought he heard, the Defender blindly following Dummy's play, follows suit or discards if appropriate. The error in play can be corrected providing a member of each side has not yet played to the next trick.

The procedure is to effectively replay the incorrect trick. In many situations there is a dispute as to which card Declarer called for, to resolve this, ask each player which card they heard, a 50/50 split would encourage the Director to look further and consider the viability of the change, whilst a 75/25 would fail to convince the director that the card played was anything other than the card called. A fifth card played to a trick by a defender becomes a major penalty card unless it was clearly an intended lead, Laws pertaining to 'Leads out of turn, applying. If Declarer plays an extra card, it is just returned to the hand, unless there was a clear intention to lead it.

Law 45F covers the situation when Dummy plays a card before instructed to, a frequent occurrence but one that can turn nasty. Dummy's should never touch a card unless instructed to. If the Director is called, his determination would be based on whether Dummy did suggest a line of play to his Declarer or whether the line was automatic. If he so rules the former, play continues with an adjusted score given if the defenders were damaged.

Section 2 of 'The Play' covers irregularities in procedure and irregular leads and plays, Laws 46 to 60 subject offenders to varying degrees of penalties with very little discretion on the part of the director.

Law 46 is 'Incomplete or Erroneous Call of Card from Dummy', I suspect we are all guilty of failing to use the correct terminology when calling for a card from Dummy, using such words as 'High', 'Low', 'Win it' etc.

As I discussed in a previously, all misunderstandings can be so easily avoided if only players would get into the habit of naming the card they wished to play. Unfortunately, every time the director is called to rule, players get heated, resentment sets in and accusations of 'Win at any Cost' are bandied about. The Law states that if the Declarer calls 'High' or 'Low', the obvious intent and requirement is to literally comply with such instruction; The Law also considers the requirement when a call fails to identify which card is to be played when naming either a suit with no suggestion of rank or vice versa. In the former case, the lowest card of the suit is deemed played, whilst the latter requires the continuation of the suit as played to the previous trick, or otherwise any suit where the rank is in Dummy, Declarers choice. Any call for a card not in Dummy is cancelled. If Declarer says 'Play anything', either defender can nominate which card is played.

In a recent major event, a Declarer playing in a 6 level contract called 'small' at trick two after having lost the first trick, the problem was that he assumed his left hand Defender had continued the suit as led, which he was going to trump in hand, when in reality the Defender had switched and in playing small the Declarer was now going one down in a cold contract. If he had named the actual card, no problem would have occurred as the first requirement in playing from Dummy is to follow suit.

Law 47 is the authority for played cards to be retracted when certain events occur to the detriment of the non-offending side or to correct an irregularity. eg: to correct a failure to follow suit, or after a change of play as authorised by law, as when Dummy places a wrong card in the played position with an innocent defender following suit.

Other instances include when a Defender is wrongly informed it is his lead or if there is a correction to an explanation before any other player has played to the current trick.

Part 2 of this section starts on the second most frequent irregularity, namely 'Penalty Cards'.

Every Director is well versed in reciting the relevant passage of law yet there are a few hidden traps that require both implementation and investigation. Firstly neither Declarer nor Dummy can ever have penalty cards, Law considers that any time a card is exposed, before a legal entitlement, that there should be no area of advantage to the offending side, if there is, then a restriction or penalty is applied to theoretically redress the situation. So, if Declarer exposes any card, any advantage or information can only accrue to the Defenders. Should Declarer deliberately face his hand or show his cards, Law considers this to be a claim or concession and any dispute would be referred to the appropriate law.

Law 49 is headed 'Exposure of a Defenders Card', ignoring at the moment the aspect of a lead, any time a Defenders card is placed in such a position that partner could see its face, unauthorised information is available to partner and as such there has to be a correction process, initially designating the card as a 'Penalty Card'.

Law 50, 'Disposition of a Penalty Card'. As has been previously determined, any card(s) exposed by a defender becomes a penalty card, such card or cards MUST remain face up on the table until a penalty has been selected.

When the Director is called to the table the first enquiry should concern itself with how the card came to be exposed. There are thee aspects that need to be clarified, firstly, was it a lead? Secondly, was the exposure an accident or a deliberate act? If an accident, ie, dropped, then providing it was a non-honour (2 - 9), it becomes 'A Minor Penalty Card' as against any honour (AKQJ10) or any card deliberately faced being 'A Major Penalty Card. If more than one card, then the provisions of the latter apply. 'A Minor Penalty Card' is deemed to be of an insignificant nature and the penalty reflects this.

In essence, whilst the card must remain face up on the table, the player can treat the card as though it was in the hand with the only requirement of play being that he may not play another card of the same suit below the rank of an honour. There is no requirement whatsoever to play the card if on lead, in discarding or in following suit other than as stated in the previous sentence.

'A Major Penalty Card' is classified as a serious infraction, imparting significant unauthorised information to partner with a penalty that takes away any suggestion of an advantage.. In short, 'A Major Penalty Card' must be played at the first legal opportunity whether in leading, discarding or following suit, in addition should the offenders partner gain the lead whilst the card is faced on the table, the Declarer has an option of insisting or prohibiting a lead of that suit, with the prohibition continuing for as long as that player remains on lead.

If this option is taken up, the penalty card is replaced in the hand. Should the offender have more than one penalty card, the Declarer can nominate which card is played with the only obligation being the requirement to follow suit. Declarers sometimes feel hard done by when a Defender has a Major Penalty Card and is on lead, with such lead being of great disadvantage to Declarer, A Rueful Rabbit Syndrome. There is no recourse in this instance as the play of the penalty card is part of the legal process of the game whereby the offender is not in receipt of any area of unauthorised information and therefore cannot be further penalised. A case of 'that's the Way the Cookie Crumbles'.

Penalty cards also occur through exposed cards during the auction should the offender become a defender. The criteria applying to whether it is designated as 'Major' or 'Minor' applies as before. Should the offender become Declarer or Dummy, the exposed card is simply replaced in the hand. Have you ever been faced with 13 penalty cards? Every now and again, a player, believing he is Dummy, faces all 13 cards. Not good news!

Law 51 'Two or more Penalty Cards' with no upper limit now comes into force and the fun begins. At every turn of the offender to play, the law gives Declarer the right to designate any legal play of the remaining penalty cards. Every time the offenders partner is on lead, the Declarer can require the lead of a suit, or prohibit a lead of any suit or suits as exposed, however, if either of these options are selected, the offender picks up every card in the suit or suits named, thus reducing the penalty cards, often considerably. The Director will probably stay at the table throughout the play as the options listed above are fairly complex.

Law 52 deals with 'A Failure to Lead or Play a Penalty Card'. In the heat of battle it is easy to forget one's obligations as laid down by law and lead or play a card from hand forgetting that the exposed card should have been played to that trick. All that happens is, in effect, that the illegal play becomes a second penalty card, with Declarer given the option to select which of the two cards is played.

Part 3 of Section 2 covers 'Irregular Leads and Plays', herein lies the parrot fashion expounding of the opening lead out of turn options. Once a daily occurence, now, thanks to the requirement to lead face down, a fairly rare phenomenon. As in other like laws, whereby irregularities can be accepted if advantageous, any lead out of turn can be accepted, pounded theory goes along the lines that if a player is stupid enough not to know whose lead it is, then he is likely to have made a stupid lead.

A lead out of turn is not confined to Defenders, during the play, Declarers often lead from the wrong hand before Dummy has a chance to stop them. As an aside, Dummy's role is very important, as an alert Dummy can certainly prevent his Declarer from leading from the wrong hand which prevents any benefit to the defenders.

Once a lead from the wrong hand occurs, either defender or Declarer as the case may be, can accept the lead simply by either playing to the trick or making any statement to that effect. No consultation is permitted as any suggestion of this would void any requirement and would be treated as Unauthorised Information plus a breach of propriety.

Back to the opening lead out of turn. Every director has his pet way of expressing the law, many players are confused by the number of options and the volume of the Directors statement, not doing themselves justice in their selection of the play. My preferred line is to start off by emphasizing the option to accept the lead before starting on the other aspects. I believe that if you eliminate this option first, you then leave the player to concentrate on the remainder, with the resultant benefit that the selection is completed in far less time.

I am a strong advocate of self expression when it comes to imparting law, a Director who recites verbotem from the rule book either doesn't know the laws or hasn't enough confidence in his ability to get the message across.

Section 2 of part 3 deals with 'Other Irregular Leads and Plays', Law 57 to Law 60 embrace 'Premature Leads or Plays by Defender, Simultaneous Leads or Plays and Play after an Illegal Play'. The first of these has a drastic penalty; Beware, if you as a Defender lead to the next trick before partner has played to the current trick, or you play out of turn before partner has played, not only does your card become 'A Major Penalty Card' but also Declarer can require your partner to play either the highest or lowest card of the suit led or forbid him to play a card of any other suit.

The last paragraph of this law clarifies that it is procedurally incorrect for a Defender to play a card before Dummy even though there is only a singleton there or there is an automatic play. A Lead or play made simultaneously with another player's legal lead or play is deemed subsequent and catagorised as a 'Major Penalty Card' from this point on. When a player plays two or more cards to a trick, it is relevent whether or not all the cards were visable. if only one, then that card is played with all others returned to the hand; If more than one is visable, the player has the right to select which card he wishes to play with all others becomming 'Major Penalty Cards'. Should discovery not occur until a later time, the law of defective trick applies, Law 67.

Law 60 considers the consequences of 'Play after an Illegal Play' noting that any play by the non-offender after a lead or play out of turn negates any penalty whilst a play by the offender's partner may subject the side to further penalties.

Law 61, 'The Revoke', There is not a player on this earth who has not succumbed to the revoke, from beginners to World Champions, it strikes with gay abandon. In the old days a failure to follow suit was totally preventable with partners permitted to ask the question "Having no more partner". Nowadays only Dummy is permitted such latitude who should safeguard against a revoke by questioning his Declarer every time he failed to follow suit.

I find it difficult to comprehend why Dummy's decide at this crucial time to go for a smoke, cup of coffee or comfort break. The responsibility of keeping Declarer on the straight and narrow must be more important. Defenders are in a far less advantageous position with Law preventing them from querying a failure to follow suit by their partner unless you are (un)lucky enough to play in one of the Zones that permit the question, a right under Law 61B. High time that the world came to an agreement on this issue with players who are unused to the Law placed at a disadvantage when competing in other Zones or world events.

There is an allowance for Declarer to ask a Defender and a Defender to ask Declarer, this however does not necessarily permit inspection of quitted tricks with only the Director having the authority to establish whether a failure to follow suit has occurred. In a proportion of claims, a revoke has never occurred and in inspecting the alleged faulty trick, a player may have been able to establish the content, which he had forgotten!

A frequent scenario when a revoke occurs is cards all over the place, the unfortunate Director arrives at the table to find faced cards in abundance with all players at odds with each other. In order to restore a semblance of sanity, the first task is to restore the played cards to the sequence of play and discover approximately where the alleged failure to follow suit occurred. In many instances, it was either on the current trick or the one immediately preceding it; Here it is essential to determine whether or not under law, the revoke has been established or whether they are still in the period for allowable correction without penalty. It this is the case then the correction is mandatory with the faulty card, if Defender, left face up on the table as a 'Major Penalty Card', if Declarer, simply replaced in the hand.

If the faulty trick had been completed, members of the non offending side have the option to change their play providing the original play was made after the revoke. After a member of the non offending side elects to change their play, the same option is offered to the player on the left. The original card becoming a 'Major Penalty Card' if a Defender. Any revoke, whether established or not, on trick 12, must be corrected with no resultant penalty, in essence the two tricks 12 and 13 are simply replayed. There may be an area of unauthorised information to an offending side by seeing the change of play, in which case the Director may well rule an adjusted score under law 16.

Law 63 is headed 'Establishment of a Revoke', there are three defined times, the first and most relevant is when a member of the offending side leads or plays to the next trick; In other words a trick can be completed, Declarer leads to the next trick, Defender now realises an error and calls the Director, a change would be permitted as the correction is within the time allowed, no penalty. The other two establishment times revolve around a claim, concession or indication of a play to the next trick, again by a member of the offending side. Declarers often fall prey to this scenario, trumping a loser, then claiming still holding a card of the suit as led.

There is one other area of a so called effective establishment, as reported earlier, it is in most Zones, an infraction for Defenders to question each other over a failure to follow suit. Should they illegally do so, in any way shape or form, and the player had revoked, then the offending player is required to substitute a legal card with the penalty provisions of Law 64 now coming into force and the original played card becoming 'A Major Penalty Card'. A double Whammy!

Law 64, 'Procedure After Establishment of a revoke'. Once the Director determines that it is too late to correct a failure to follow suit or when the is a claim that a revoke occurred after the play has been completed, there is now a probable penalty to be imposed. Providing the claim of revoke is agreed to or proved, the Directors first line of questioning revolves around who won the offending trick.

In reality, the only way the offender can win a trick by revoking is by trumping, so the Director can even bypass this line of questioning if the contact is in No Trumps. If the offender illegally trumped then this trick is transferred. Presuming the offender did not illegally trump, just discarded, the information now required is whether the offending player won a subsequent trick with a card he should have played at the time.. If the answer is 'Yes', then this trick is transferred. (remember, this only applies if the offender did NOT win the revoke trick).

Directors should be careful to ensure that the players are aware that Declarer is a player in his own right and that any statement of 'He won the trick' does not refer to the winning in Dummy's hand. Just because Declarer plays Dummy's hand does not mean that tricks won from Dummy constitute any right of claim that Declarer won the offending or subsequent trick. Up to this point everything appears fair and equitable, after all, only a trick that has possibly been illegally won has been transferred.

To ensure that there is no suggestion of damage from a non-offending side in their thought processes during the play, the law further imposes a transference of one trick. Note the word transference, this correctly implies that one can only transfer tricks that the offenders win, on or after the infraction, with any tricks legally won before the revoke not being involved.

Law 64B covers the situations where penalties do not apply, they include the proviso so mentioned above that of if no tricks were won on or after the revoke trick. Also included in this law are the aspects whereby there is no penalty for a second or subsequent revoke in the same suit, a failure to play a faced card or by a failure to play a card belonging to Dummy. Elaboration is necessary on this last aspect as their is an impression that Dummy's can't revoke and anyway the Defenders should count Dummy's cards'.

I have yet to discover where in law it requires a defender to count anybody else's cards, please enlighten me if you can find it! In fact, Dummy can revoke by failing to play a card belonging to the hand, situations of how this can happen include two cards stuck together, a card falling on the floor going unnoticed etc. All law says is that there is no penalty for this as Dummy's hand is exposed for all to see.

To compensate for any damage caused through any of these non-penalty provisions, law 64C gives the Director the authority to award an adjusted score when either the penalty itself or a non penalty fails to compensate for the likely result on the hand. Examples of this are when a transference of 2 tricks is not enough, when the failure to play a card from Dummy either gives Declarer the contract or defeats a contract that should have been made. Both examples would be cause for adjustment.

With all laws there has to be a time frame for the claiming of of a penalty for an infraction, with revokes it is when a member of the non offending side calls on the next deal or after the round has ended, whichever comes first. Again equity would prevail if the non offending side has suffered damage, the time frame for this would depend on the regulation in force for the timing of appeals for that session. So remember, if when scouring through the hand record for the session, you discover a revoke that cost you your contract, call the director who, providing you are within the time frame will adjust the score once the revoke is either proved or agreed too by the opponents.

Part 4 of 'The Play' deals with 'Tricks', identifying the correct procedure for the placement and arrangement of tricks and finishing off with the law of 'Defective Trick'.

Law 65, 'Arrangement of Tricks' is purely procedural, whilst the majority of players conform to correct procedure, a failure to do so will not subject any dissenter to penalty. The problem arises in disputes whereby players who have conformed as per law will have an advantage over those that don't.

A Director called to settle an argument over ownership of tricks will rely heavily on those players whose cards are in an orderly row. In many instances disputes arise after one or more of the hands have been collected up, hopefully there will be at least one hand in position to assist in solving the dispute.

A few helpful hints which I have found useful over the years include:

I was involved in a decision a few years ago over a dispute of tricks in a 3 No Trump contract. At the conclusion of a 20 board match and comparing scores, a dispute surfaced with the Declarer claiming he had made 9 tricks, the Defenders claiming 5 tricks. Both sides were adamant.

In questioning the 4 players, the Dummy was convinced Declarer had made 9, nominated the lead and play to the whole contract. The Defender on Declarers left hotly disputed the play, including the stated opening lead, nominating his recollection of the play which was totally at odds with Dummy's line. Declarer supported Dummy, right hand Defender supporting his partner.

So I was faced with two claims, both totally differing in play, both logical and both leading to the two different results. In frustration, and unable to gain any concrete information to support either case, I awarded an artificial adjusted score of zero imps to both teams.

Law 66 'Inspection of Tricks. As a matter of Law, any player can inspect the current trick up until the player has turned his card face down. In addition, any player can look at his own card just played providing nobody has led to the next trick. During the play, once a trick is quitted, only the Director can look at that or previous tricks for the purpose whereby law needs to be addressed.

At the conclusion of play, any player has the right to inspect any trick but only for the purpose of querying a revoke or ownership of a trick. It is expressly forbidden for a player to touch any other players cards, however, he may request inspection for the purpose as stated above. Should an opponent deliberately mix his cards after such a request, he will find it difficult to refute any allegations of infractions should it be difficult to establish the facts.

Law 67, 'Defective Trick'. An omission to play before each side plays to the next trick is easily corrected, the offender just supplying a legal card. An extra card played is treated as a fifth card played and subject to Law 45E, 'Penalty Card'.

Once both sides have played to the next trick, the rectification is more complex, firstly the Director is required to find out where the irregularity occurred, then if an omission, the offender chooses a legal play with, holding a card of the suit, simply placing it in the played cards with no penalty; With no holding of the suit, he may play any card he chooses, but is subject to a one trick revoke penalty of Law 64 on the defective trick. In both of these instances, the ownership of the defective trick does not change. Should an offender have played too many cards to a trick, identification is paramount with the extra card(s) replaced in the hand; Should alternative play be available then Law requires the highest of the legal cards be played. Any card(s) replaced in the hand is deemed to have belonged continuously and failure to follow suit constitutes a revoke.

Part 5 of 'The Play' is 'Claims and Concessions'. An area of Law that generates a lot of discussion and a degree of angst.

A list of never's should be in every players vocabulary, namely: Never claim with trumps outstanding, never claim without giving a clear indication of the line of play and foremost, never concede as a defender, partners sometimes turn up with the unexpected.

The Law starts off by defining claims and concessions, continues with a requirement to clarify any claim and enforces the requirement that after any claim or concession PLAY CEASES. Under no circumstances will the Director allow play to continue or take any notice of play that occurred after the announcement. A claim is simply a statement of intent signifying that there is no point in prolonging play as the remaining play of the cards is automatic. Therefore, any statement, showing of the hand or similar, constitutes an intent to claim. Can be done by Declarer or either Defender.

A concession is very similar, dangerous to do as a Defender, but when obvious can definitely speed up play. Any Defender has the right to object to his partner conceding but unauthorised information would apply and any faced cards would become penalty cards. An objection by any player requires the presence of the Director who will rule to the appropriate part of law 70 or 71.

Law 69, Acquiescence in Claim or Concession'. Up until their side makes a call on the next board or before the round ends, acquiescence occurs providing nobody makes an objection.

This acquiescence may be withdrawn up until the correction period established within the regulations of the tournament, but only if acquiescence has been given in the loss of a trick which in fact was won, or in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Normal includes careless or inferior but not irrational.

Law 70, 'Contested Claims'. The Directors role when a player queries the validity of a claim is to adjudicate equitably with any doubt given in favour of the non-claimer. Various guidelines are stated which assist in any determination ranging from getting the claimer to repeat and if necessary elaborate on any statement of claim, to an analyses of the remaining cards to see whether there is any doubt as to the outcome.

My approach is to ask the claimer what his intent was at the point of claiming, the initial response will set the scene for the resolution giving the Director a valuable insight into the thought processes of the player. The first requirement is for all hands to be faced, with any objections now re-heard in the light of any information gleaned through either seeing all four hands or any statement as made by the claimant. Very often the objection is now withdrawn. Should the side continue with their objection, normally due to an outstanding trump, the Director would award a trick unless the claimer mentioned that trumps still needed to be drawn or was aware of an outstanding trump or a trick would not normally be won if a progression of play had occurred.

Equity is the name of the game, just because a trump is outstanding does not mean an automatic trick reversal, bridge logic has to be in the equation.

Other situations where the director would give a trick to the opponents are, if the claimer changes course from an original line, with the original line failing or a play that requires an opponent to hold a particular card or cards, ie if a finesse is needed, not permitted to take it, if onside, not permitted the drop if singleton offside. This proviso is waived if a player has previously failed to follow to the suit or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play.

Law 71, 'Concession Cancelled'. Once a concession occurs, it stands, however, within the correction period established in the regulations a player can withdraw a concession if he has conceded a trick that was won by their side or if a trick could not be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards.

Law 71B states the obvious, that if a contract made or went down, then the true result is reinstated.

Law 71C, 'Implausible Concession'. The Director will cancel the concession of a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards up until the conceding side makes a call on the next board, or until the round ends.