|
|
|
LKU-19
|
|
| DBf's
Lovkommission - Udtalelse nr. 19 - december 2012 |
|||
WBF har indkaldt forslag til ændringer af bridgelovene i forbindelse med en revision af 2007-versionen af bridgelovene. Dette dokument, som i øvrigt er skrevet på engelsk, indeholder DBf's ændringsforslag.
The WBF has invited all stakeholders to submit suggestions for changes to the 2007 version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. This document contains the suggestions brought forward by the Danmarks Bridgeforbund (DBf, The Danish Bridge Federation). Each suggestion has been submitted separately as requested in the invitation.
The definition of end of the "play period" as currently stated does not work well. It would seem to make more sense to end the play period when the play of the cards ends (when trick 13 is played or when there is a claim or concession). The term "play period" could then be used consistently to describe how dummy is dummy only for the duration of the play period.
In Law 9A3, dummy "may not" draw attention to an irregularity during the play period. In Law 43A1a he "should not" call the director on his own initiative during the play period. This seems inconsistent, for surely dummy will be violating the "may not" part of Law 9A3 if he violates the "should not" part of Law 43A1a. The choice between "may not" and "should not" ought to be aligned in the two Laws.
Law 9A3 is a bit at odds with the definition of play period. Possible rectification: replace "but may do so after" with "until".
All players may attempt to prevent an irregularity at any time. However, this rule is mentioned in a sentence that follows a rule that applies specifically to the play period. It is possible to misinterpret the rule about preventing an irregularity so that it only applies during the play period. It would therefore be an improvement if Law 9A3 were split into two separately numbered laws. The new law 9A4 thus created could be worded: "Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)."
South is declarer in a small slam in hearts in a teams event at the international level scored in imps. Dummy's spades are the king and jack, opposite declarer's three low spades. Eventually, at trick 10, declarer has to lead towards dummy and guess the spade position. He goes up with the king, which loses to East's ace. West has the spade queen, and the contract is down one. It turns out that declarer has asked East about EW's agreements about opening leads, and East has misinformed South in a way that, combined with the bidding, makes it a near certainty for South that West must have the spade ace. With a proper explanation, South would have had to make a simple guess, so the score is adjusted with weights 50-50 for 12 tricks and 11 tricks. This is uncontroversial.
It turns out that without a spade lead, South had twelve easy top tricks all along, but that he clumsily and unnecessarily ruffed one of dummy's high diamonds in trick 7. This is obviously a "serious error" as mentioned in Law 12C1b, and it is also clear that it is "unrelated to the infraction", and that it is "self-inflicted damage" that South is left with the spade guess. Now, if South happens to ask his question and receive his misinformation at trick 10, it is clear that the serious error was not "subsequent to the irregularity", so the weighted score also applies to NS.
However, if South happened to ask his question and receive his misinformation immediately after the opening lead was faced, the serious error would now be "subsequent to the irregularity", so NS would have to live with the table result.
It seems unfair that it makes a difference to the compensation to NS just exactly when South chooses to ask a question. This unfairness would evaporate if this law instead started: "If, subsequent to the effect of the irregularity, ..."
Law 15C applies when players have moved incorrectly. However:
It is not easy to convince everybody that those players who were not supposed to play the board now will not discuss the hand before they will play it again, i.e., perhaps the TD should be allowed to assign A- to such players.
Does Law 15C apply when players have moved correctly but are playing a board which they should play in a later round? Again, will they discuss it before that round? Perhaps the TD should be allowed to instruct the players to finish the hand.
Law 16C does not explicitly cover a situation where a player receives unauthorized information before the auction period begins, but the director is not called until after the first call has been made (perhaps because the player in question was not aware of the significance of the information until then). This could be remedied by changing Law 16C3 to something like this: "If the Director is summoned in order to rule on such unauthorized information after the first call of the auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board, the Director proceeds as in 2(c)."
It seems that, corresponding to Law 20B, a player who is required by law to pass, should not have the right to ask for an explanation of the opponents' auction.
When a player gives a mistaken explanation, Law 20F5b states that partner "must" call the Director at the first legal opportunity, whereas Law 75B states that he "should". These Laws should be aligned.
It might be worthwhile to make it clear here or in Law 16 that if RHO does not change their call, the original call is still a retracted call in the following sense: Information from the meaning of the call in the original context is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side until such information becomes available in the auction.
We suggest removing the "no pause for thought" requirement. The requirement makes sense when the bidding is oral and the player is expected to hear what he is actually saying, but when bidding boxes are used the requirement seems less obvious.
Some players need a "pause for thought" in order to realize that what just happened was that they made a call that can be changed under Law 25A. By the time they have realized this, they have "paused for thought" and can no longer change the call. On the other hand, if what just happened was something else, it is important to remain quiet in order not to give partner unauthorized information. Of course, any pause for thought will be taken into account when the director judges whether or not the call really was inadvertent.
This change would mean that players could in general be encouraged not to say "oops" immediately when something strange happens, before they've had time to realize what actually happened.
A reference to Law 16D might be in order, much like the reference given in Law 25B3.
Law 25B should have some initial text to this effect: "1. Except as provided in Law 25A, a player may not change a call once it is made." The present Law 25B1 would then become Law 25B2, and it could then begin: "An attempt to change a call in violation of Law 25B1 ...".
An explicit reference to Law 26 would be useful here.
Since the meaning of the insufficient bid cannot possibly relate to partnership agreements, the meaning must be whatever the player intended when making the bid. However, only this player knows, but the Director must also know in order to choose between Law 27B1 or Law 27B2 (or even Law 27B3). Should the Director's instructions to the player include information about which bids are allowed under Law 27B1 and which are not, and are the other players entitled to such information? Clarification in the Laws might be appropriate.
Should the Director simply apply Law 12C1c principles?
This law does not handle the case where the artificial call does not specify any suit. In addition, it is not entirely clear how to apply Law 31A2 if the artificial bid specified two known suits, or a known suit and an unknown suit.
This law should probably also apply when the play was caused by a mistaken restatement of the auction or a mistaken statement about the final contract given by an opponent.
The words "played to that trick" should probably be generalized to "played".
Law 56 refers to Law 54D when dealing with a defender's lead out of turn. However, Law 54D covers the subject inadequately in two respects:
Law 54D explicitly refers to the "opening lead", which will confuse the uninitiated reader.
Law 54D only covers the case where declarer declines his option to accept the lead out of turn, which might lead the uninitiated to believe that law 53A does not apply to a lead out of turn by a defender (other than the opening lead).
If it is seen as desirable to phrase these laws with a minimum of repetition, it would be more useful to let Law 56 contain the rules governing all leads out of turn by a defender, so that Law 54 can refer to Law 56 whenever appropriate, leaving the explicit parts of Law 54 to deal with the special considerations that apply to an opening lead.
When a player is committed to playing a card by one of the actions in Law 45C (1-4) but then illegally plays another card, and LHO plays a card based on the illegal card, the laws do not address whether LHO's play condones the illegal play. In our opinion, this situation should be treated analogously to condoning a change of bid (Law 25B) and condoning a lead out of turn (Law 53A and Law 53B). This also implies that LHO (and when the infraction is by declarer, perhaps both defenders) should be offered the option of accepting the illegal play (in order to be consistent with Law 9B1c).
Let us look at example 1. The lead is from declarer's hand, but declarer asks dummy to lead a low heart. Dummy reminds declarer that that lead would be out of turn. However, declarer has effectively already played the card according to Law 45C2b, so dummy is violating Law 43A1b by drawing attention to declarer's infraction.
Now let us look at example 2. Declarer's LHO leads a spade. Declarer now asks for a heart from dummy, even though dummy has spades. Dummy reminds declarer that he must follow suit. Again, declarer has committed an irregularity, and dummy has drawn attention to it, in violation of Law 43A1b.
The effect of example 2 seems silly. Dummy is allowed to ask declarer if he is revoking when declarer plays a card from his own hand, but dummy is not allowed to point out that declarer actually is revoking when playing a card from dummy. This might me mended by allowing dummy to draw attention to declarer's irregularities in general (probably by amending Law 43), or, failing that, by explicitly allowing dummy to point out a revoke by declarer (no doubt by means of a change of Law 61B2).
It was reported in the minutes of a meeting of the WBF-LC in October 2001 that dummy does have the right to warn declarer when he is not following suit in dummy. What we suggest is simply that the laws be amended to reflect this interpretation.
A special case occurs when a player did play a card to a trick, but somehow that card did not end up among the player's played cards. This might be handled in a new section 67B3:
" When the director determines that the offender did play a card to the defective trick, but that card is not placed among the played cards, the director finds the card and places it correctly among the offender's played cards. The offender is not deemed to have revoked on the trick in question, but if the player has played the same card to a subsequent trick, that trick is now defective (see Law 67B1)."
Is a statement from dummy to be considered a claim? This does not seem to be in accordance with the general principle that dummy must not participate in the play; in addition, dummy cannot reasonably state a line of play when claiming. A clarification is necessary.
It is not very clear which are the TD's powers and which are his duties.
We believe the reference should be to Law 92B, not to Law 79C.
We suggest that Law 82C be clarified along these lines:
If the director determines, within the time limit specified according to Law 92B, that an incorrect ruling has influenced the normal completion of a board or otherwise has had an effect on the score of the board, the director shall rectify the incorrect ruling. When possible, the corrected ruling should allow normal completion of the board, including any normal rectification according to these laws. When this is not possible, the director shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending concerning the influence on the result caused by the incorrect ruling.
It is unclear whether the TD should apply Law 86D when the result obtained at the other table was neutral or even favourable to the offending side instead of awarding an artificial adjusted score.
How should the term "favourable" be interpreted? Probably the TD should consider an assigned score and compare this to an artificial score; if the assigned score is better for the offending side, the adjusted score will be that assigned score. But should the TD determine such an assigned score using the principles in Law 12C1e (and if so, which part?), should he go for the most likely result, or something else?
Should Law 86D be applied when both sides are offending?
Should Law 86D be applied when both sides are non-offending?
Is it according to intention that Law 86D does not mention weighted scores (12C1c) and unbalanced scores (12C1e)?
When the director assigns an artificial score at one table before play of the board has commenced at the other table in the match, the footnote seems to indicate that the director should not allow that board be to played at the other table (the exception in the footnote proves the rule). Then, if the director's score adjustment is later appealed and the appeals committee decides that the score should stand, there will be no result to compare with. This leaves the committee with no choice but to assign average plus to both teams, which is hardly a satisfactory outcome.