|
LAW |
| GUIDE TO THE 2007 LAWS - CHANGES AFFECTING DIRECTORS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12C1(c) |
The concept
of'weighted' adjusted scores becomes the norm in England. It has been in
place since 2000 as |
|
|
|
an option but
it now replaces the current law 12C2. |
|
|
|
12C1(e) DOES
NOT APPLY IN ENGLAND. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example; Due
to an infraction the TD disallows a score of 4♠ by E/W and puts it back to 4♥
by N/S. there is |
|
|
|
a 50/50 chance
that N/S will make 10 or 11 tricks, so the TD can award 50% of 4♥ = and 50% 0f 4♥ + 1. |
|
|
|
See the White
Book p27 for full details. An article will follow in a future in English
Bridge |
|
|
25B |
In the current
(1997) code there is a little known law that allows you to make a call and
then 'change your |
|
|
|
mind'. It was
quite a well kept secret and had a strange penalty where you could play for
at most 40% after |
|
|
|
you had done
it. In the new laws that has gone. You can still make a 'mechanical error'
and be allowed to |
|
|
|
change it
(L25A) but you cannot change your mind. By and large a bid made cannot be
changed. |
|
|
27 |
This
is both complicated to explain and may be difficult to apply. There is a
significant change to the |
|
|
|
insufficient
bid law. The scope for allowing an insufficient bid (IB) to be replaced
without silencing partner has |
|
|
|
been extended.
The old rule of replacing it at the lowest legal level remains, provided that
both bids (the IB |
|
|
|
and
replacement bid) are natural. But there is now an added possibility, which
comes if a replacement call |
|
|
|
can be found
which has the same ,eaning, or a more precise meaning as the IB itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Confused?
Well, Max Bavin has come up with a useful question that TDs should ask, which
might help to make |
|
|
|
it easier to
decide. " Would all hands making the replacement call also have made the
original call in correct |
|
|
|
circumstances?"
If the answer is yes then the change is allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are a few
examples; |
|
|
|
West North East South |
|
|
|
1♣ 1♠
1♦ |
|
|
|
EAST/WEST play
Precision Club, so 1♣
shows 16+ HCP and, without interference, 1♦ shows 0-7 HCP. Can East |
|
|
|
replace his 1♦ bid by double if he has 5
- 7 points? They play that over interference pass shows 0 - 4 HCP and |
|
|
|
double shows 5
- 7 HCPs. |
|
|
|
Would all
hands playing Precision Club that would now double also have bid 1♦ without interference? |
|
|
|
Yes, so the
change can be made and partner can continue bidding. Note that in this case
pass would also be |
|
|
|
okay if East
had 0 - 4 points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West North East South |
|
|
|
4NT 5♦
5♣ |
|
|
|
4NT was
Blackwood, East missed the 5♦ bid and 5♣ showed 0 or 4 aces. East/West play DOPI over |
|
|
|
(double shows
no ace, pass shows 1 ace). Can East replace 5♣ by double? Yes, all hands that would double |
|
|
|
to show no
ace, would also have bid 5♣ without the interference. |
|
|
40 |
This law
confirms a number of things already in EBU regulations. It also confirms that
you cannot have any |
|
|
|
aide-memoires
or aids to calculation. So you cannot, for example, during the play take out
the bidding card |
|
|
|
to see what 4♥xx + 2 will score for you. |
|
|
64 |
The criteria
for transferring tricks after an established revoke is changed. The TD no
longer has to look at |
|
|
|
whether 'an
additional trick was won by the offending player with a card that could
legally have been played |
|
|
|
to the revoke
trick', Instead he adjudicates either two tricks or one trick as now, and
then looks to see |
|
|
|
whether equity
has been served. Deciding whether equity has been served becomes the norm. It
always |
|
|
|
was, but is
now even more important that the TD considers it. |
|
|
70 |
The claim laws
acknowledge that, even though play should cease after a claim, it often does
not and the TD |
|
|
|
is given help
on how to proceed. |
|
|
70,71 |
The claim and
concession laws still refer to action that would be careless or inferior for
the class of player |
|
|
|
involved, but
the bit about being 'irrational' has been removed. |
|
|
80 |
The Laws recognise a body called the Tournament
Organizer which could be the Club,the County Association, |
|
|
|
a Congress or Holiday Organizer or the EBU itself
and sets out the duties and responsibilities. It replaces |
|
|
|
the Sponsoring Organisation in the current laws. |
|
|
|
© The English Bridge Union |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|