The WBF's consultation on the 2027 Laws
(I don't have a question, just notifying readers of this forum of something that many of them are likely to find relevant.)
The WBF has started a consultation looking for input into what changes to the Laws of Bridge should be made for the 2027 edition:
The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2027 – An Open Invitation
They are interested both in changes to the effect of the law, and to wording and layout improvements.
Comments
Anyone with ideas for this might wish to present them here first so that they can be refined in the light of feedback before being presented to the WBF.
Regarding a stream on bridgewinners, do we specifically forbid a player from being able to obtain new knowledge about a score until the end of the play period.
This would require law 77 to be renumbered as 77A - the list and 77B: A player may not obtain the information in 77A during the auction or play period. and 16A1c should have (and see Law 77B)
I'm not sure this is actually a problem outside of Bridgewinners' pin-dancing discussions.
Last night at the club - the bidding went (1H) - 2C - (6H) - P - (P) - ?
The question is: Should I sacrifice in 7!C or not? If I don't know the score for 6 down doubled non-vulnerable is it right that I should be able to ask the director what that score would be - as it will undoubtedly affect my decision. (I held 7 clubs to the KQJT and the King of Spades).
In fact I only went five down for -1100 to save -1460 (yes they could make 7 but they would never bid it as they could be missing an Ace).
Hi weejonnie
I think this might have been aswered on the Thread on Bridgewinners. However, 40B2d should cover it "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player is not entitled to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique during the auction period and play." Looking at Law 81 "The director applies , and is bound by, these Laws....." and "to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. " I don't think it says that the director should aid anyone in their calculations or technique.
CMOT
P.S. I usually find that these calculations are pretty immaterial as our opponents are usually the only ones to bid a laydown slam and even -1100 is a bottom.
We previously had a discussion about "are the players allowed to find out what the scores for various contracts would be" in this thread.
I think that this is one of those cases which is fairly clear under the existing Laws, but nonetheless gives room for interpretation that perhaps shouldn't be clarified. There are other similar situations, such as "is a player who has a mental lapse (not a mechanical error) and pulled out the wrong bidding card as a consequence allowed to know that they made the wrong bid, if they find out due to partner announcing/alerting?".
Well you have to do the right thing even if you don't gain by it (most bid the slam so it was effective for once).
Although I think you are right - "rights and responsibilities" doesn't mean "knowledge of all things in the lawbook"
As prompted by Gordon in another thread.
Law 12
Assigned adjusted scores make perfect sense to me, and by logical extension artificial adjusted scores where the possibilities are numerous or not obvious. The hand has been played (possibly only partly) and some skill has been used in doing so.
I am concerned here only with where a board cannot be played.
Law 12B1 states that:
_The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.
_
It does NOT say “to penalise the offending side”.
Let’s look at these in more detail.
What is the damage to a non-offending side that needs redress? They have certainly been deprived of the opportunity to play a hand of bridge (which they presumably enjoy doing), but has their score for the event been adversely affected?
Looking at the second part of 12B1:
Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
What is a pair’s expected result if they had played the board? It is unlikely to be 60%. In fact a moment’s thought shows it is in fact the average score that they got on all the other boards – i.e. their result for the event without the unplayed board.
To give them their expected result, one has merely to give them no result at all.
I can see where the argument for giving them 60% comes from: a feeling that they might have done better than their average. That’s all well and good, but that good score does not exist in a vacuum. By given them 60% we disadvantage all the other pairs playing the same cards. These other pairs have also done nothing wrong – why are we penalising them?
Now let’s look at the offending side.
What advantage (that we are seeking to remove) has been gained by an offending side?
One could argue that not affecting their average score could be an advantage. Indeed one could envisage a situation where a pair might deliberately void a last board to maintain a good average score, but mechanisms for dealing with that already exist both in the procedural penalties and elsewhere in the laws.
Other than that there is no actual advantage to be removed.
Yes people need to be encouraged to follow proper procedure, but Procedural Penalties are the appropriate tool doing this.
Finally, let’s look at the case where a pair is awarded 50%. What is the purpose of this? Other than it having a logical symmetry about it, I can see none. It is clearly not to redress damage, but nor is it taking away an advantage gained.
There would need to be other adjustments made – for example using the correct VP scale
In terms of amending law 12, I would prefix 12C2 with:
When a board cannot be played, no score is entered
Where a board has been played, even if only in part, and it is necessary to award an artificial adjusted score, then the following applies.