Page 0043

AUG_08_EB_p43 Jeremy 16/7/08 10:23 am Page 39



about the new laws

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.

THIS article is about questions that have Suppose a defender revokes and the effect

been asked about the new laws. By the time is for it to cost him one trick but to cut

you read this, duplicate bridge in England, declarer off from a long suit in dummy;

as elsewhere, will be played under a new set then equity will not have been restored

of laws. The good news is that the change is and the director may decide to transfer Jeremy Dhondy

not going to cause a revolution and indeed more tricks to the non-offending side so

many laws are similar or identical to what that they are not damaged by the revoke.

they were in the last law book issued in

1997, but there are some changes that all Authorised and Unauthorised whether you are basing your call on your

players should be aware of (see pull out). Information hand and bridge judgement, or being in-

The EBU has run courses for directors to fluenced by some unauthorised infor-

help them with new laws and it is more Sometimes when it is your turn to bid you mation, there is now a section in the law

important than ever that a director is called have unauthorised information. A classic which defines a logical alternative as ‘an

if there is an infraction. Don’t let the club example is after partner has hesitated and action that, among the class of players in

‘expert’ blind you with science – he will then, perhaps, passed. You know he did question and using the methods of the

probably be wrong or out of date! not have a simple decision and that partnership, would be given serious conside-

knowledge is ‘unauthorised’, i.e. you did ration by a significant proportion of such

How has the revoke law changed? not gain it legally. Take this hand as an players, of whom it is judged that some might

example: select it’. So, in the hand shown, consi-

One of the changes introduced some years dering that partner has shown three or

ago forbade defenders to ask whether their Your right-hand oppo- perhaps four hearts and no particular

partner was out of a suit. Indeed if you ♠ KQ73 nent opens a weak no- values, would it be a normal action to make

said: ‘No hearts, partner?’, that was enough ♥ AJ542 trump and you bid 2♣ a game try with your hand among players

to establish a revoke and possibly a penalty ♦ 8 to show hearts and of approximately the same standard as you?

also. That has been swept away and you ♣ KJ7 another suit. After a In my view it would not and the only reason

may ask your partner if he is out of a suit pass by left-hand op- you have for continuing is partner’s slow

(Law 61B3). Dummy can continue to ask ponent, partner bids decision when bidding 2♥.

declarer (this was always legal). Defenders 2♥ – but slowly and with uncertainty. You

can also ask declarer but there is the now decide to bid on, reach game and it is ‘Oops, I didn’t mean to do that!’

possibility of some unauthorised informa- lay-down. The opponents call the director

tion if you ask, i.e. you may tip off partner and say that you did not have a clear move There has long been confusion about which

to some possible information about the over 2 ♥ and were influenced by the bids can be changed and at what point,

distribution of the hand to which he is not hesitation. The director establishes the facts and in Law 25 there is an attempt to make

entitled. and judges that there is a logical alternative this clearer. Suppose that you open 1♥

In this law, as well as many others, there to continuing, i.e. you might pass, and that and you have two small hearts and five

has been some tidying up and simplifying this is a decision that might have been spades; this would suggest that you had

of language. The word ‘penalty’ has been found by a clear majority of players (this is temporarily lost the plot and it is unlikely

removed for the most part and in the often called the ‘70% test’). that this is what you intended. In such a

revoke law the word used is ‘rectification’ The problem is that the laws have never case the director would allow you to change

with the emphasis being on putting the properly defined what a ‘logical alternative’ your call. If, on the other hand, you open

problem right if possible. It has always been is, and directors and appeal committees 1♣ with a four card suit, and then remove

important to call the director in the case of have had to use their judgement – and the bid and replaced it with 1NT because

a revoke and with some changes to how sometimes this differs from one TD to you remembered slightly too late that you

many tricks may be transferred, this is even another or one appeal committee to an- were actually playing a strong no-trump,

more important now. The most common other. In Law 16A there continues to be a then your original bid was not uninten-

situation will be that, after a revoke is definition of what you may not base calls tional and the director would not allow

established, one trick is transferred to the on (an alert or lack of alert that shows you to replace it.

non offending side (Law 64) but as before partner has forgotten the system, a hesi- The important thing here is your motive

the director may decide that this has tation, unwonted speed, an answer to a rather than the speed with which you

disadvantaged the non-offending side. question, a mannerism etc). In judging change your mind. August 2008 English Bridge 39


  1. Page 0001
  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
  57. Page 0057
  58. Page 0058
  59. Page 0059
  60. Page 0060
  61. Page 0061
  62. Page 0062
  63. Page 0063
  64. Page 0064