MindZine - Bridge

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.

Bridge Links:

Grenside Index

Laws Index

Main Bridge Index

Discuss this article on our
Card Games message board.

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.