Page 0022


Who makes the laws

and other problems

E-mail your questions to Jeremy Dhondy at

or write to the editor, Elena Jeronimidis, at 23 Erleigh Road, Reading RG1 5LR.

Please include your name and address even if writing by e-mail.

Jeremy Dhondy current emphasis is on rectification, so that

if someone revokes against you, then the NICK SMITH, Oxon, asks: If declarer

intention is to put you back in the position takes out a card to play but then re-

you would have been. Normally one trick places it in his hand without facing it or

DEREK FEY, Bristol says: Could the will do that but occasionally it needs to be placing it on the table, and left-hand

EBU have another look at the law more and if, for example, someone revoked opponent says he has seen the card and

concerning revokes? Every time there and the effect of that was to cut you off from asks for it to be played, should it be?

has been a revoke against us in pairs, four winners in the dummy you would get

even with the tricks removed we have a suitable adjustment (Law 64C).

received a below average score. Recently The relatively recent change back in the Law 45C2 covers this. A card is deemed

we were in a contract which we would law to allow partner to say: ‘No hearts, played by declarer if it is held face up

have made and an unintentional revoke partner?’ probably prevents some revokes; touching or nearly touching the table, or if

occurred. The director made his deci- however, in the event of an established it is maintained in such a position as to

sion (I have no quarrel about that) but revoke coming to light, play proceeds and indicate it has been played. It’s a bit different

we ended up with a poor score again. the director comes back at the end to from defenders playing cards as there might

The contract made at another table. I establish what needs to be done. Normally it be unauthorised information in that case

believe this is due to two things: is straightforward and only where there is but not here. Here the TD just has to decide

• Declarer has to re-adjust his play the example of equity mentioned above on the above not whether someone has seen

and then his placing of the defend- does the director have to allow more tricks the card or not. If he decides it is not played,

ers’ cards goes haywire. to the non-offending side. then the fact that as a defender you know

• Defenders run their suits against If someone breaches the law, it is possible one of declarer’s cards is authorised to you.

him and he is squeezed out of that they get lucky. That is the rub of the

tricks instead of vice versa. green. You know the sort of thing where

Also, not looking at declarer’s hand someone opens the bidding out of turn and JOHN PICKERING, via e-mail, asks

dummy cannot notice a revoke taking now essentially has to guess the final con- about this auction:

place because, for instance, declarer tract because his partner is silenced. He

may have started with a six-, or five-, guesses 3NT and they have a 5-4- spade fit West North East South

or four-card trump suit. There is sup- but 4´ goes down on ruffs and 3NT makes 1®

posedly a method for not being nine tricks. Declarer gets a top. That is just 3´ Pass Pass 4®

satisfied with the result, but often one luck although, of course, quite irritating. 4´ All Pass

does not know the result until the end If you were in a contract that would have

of the evening or even later. made and the opponent revoked and you There were no alerts and West held 17

went down when you were normally des- points and seven spades. The other

tined to make it, it is either because equity players thought it was a weak bid.

The EBU does not have the power to change was not restored or because you played North said he would have bid 5® if he

the law. The laws of duplicate bridge are poorly. If it is the first, there is a remedy had known.

made by the World Bridge Federation. They (Law 64C), if it is the second then I don’t

change every ten years or so, and no change think it suitable, personally, to change the

would be expected until 2017. However, the law because of poor concentration. There is no requirement to alert a natural

fact that the EBU does not make the laws If dummy sees declarer show out he can, double jump overcall such as (1®) 3´

does not prevent it having some input into of course, say: ‘No spades, partner?’ He may whether it is weak, strong or intermediate.

what they might become. Two Englishmen need to wait until the end to be sure there For someone to bid 3´ and then 4´ is pretty

sit on the World Laws Commission. has been a revoke but it is declarer’s duty to odd whatever it means, so why didn’t North

Although there has been some fiddling as keep an eye on the play. ask what was going on? All North is entitled

to the number of tricks a revoke costs over I’m sure this is not what you want to hear to is the East-West agreement; however,

the years, the essence of the law has been the but the chance of a change in the law for the North, if told ‘Weak,’ could probably draw

same for over sixty years. Most of the reasons you state is infinitesimal. his own conclusions. r

22 English Bridge February 2011


  1. Issue 233
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056