Towards the end of play, it is found that one player has three cards whilst the rest have four. A diligent search is made for the missing card. What do you do in the following cases?

Case 1 It is found at the previous table.

Case 2 It is found on the floor, face upwards.

Case 3 It is found on the floor face downwards.

Case 4 There is an extra card in the played cards.

Case 5 It cannot be found.

Answer 1

Case 1 Restore the card to the deficient hand,   (Law 14B)
            if exposed it becomes a penalty card     (Law 50)

Case 2 Restore the card to the deficient hand as a penalty card

Case 3 Restore the card to the deficient hand.

Case 4 Restore the card from the played cards  (Law 67B2)

Case 5 Substitute a new pack .                         (Law 14B3)

A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the hand.

Failure to have played it might constitute a revoke        (Law 14B4).

Note Recreating a deal when a card is completely lost is not easy. Inserting just one card from another pack is not advisable as a permanent solution. The apparently missing card might have been misplaced into another hand. As the players are not allowed to see the cards that have been played they cannot assist in introducing the new pack. With a playing TD a single card may have to be inserted temporarily and a new pack created after the hand has been played. (A relevant note of trivia: The temporarily added card need not have a back of the same colour or design. This is not a requirement of Law 1 in Duplicate Bridge. It is in Rubber Bridge).

East accidentally drops the seven of diamonds on the table and the TD requires it to be left there as a minor penalty card. The penalties are not great. It must be played before any other small card of the same suit and West is not subject to any direct lead-penalties.

When South, the declarer, draws trumps, West wins the 2^nd round. Being alert, he notices that East played the eight of trumps followed by the six of trumps (Trump Peter) showing that he holds a third trump and is looking for a ruff.

West can see that he and Dummy have many clubs and diamonds between them. Is he allowed to lead a club?

Answer 2

Law 50C rules that the presence of a minor penalty card does not impose any direct lead penalty upon West, but information gained from seeing it is unauthorised and could restrict West’s action.

Leading a club or a diamond are logical alternatives. The exposed diamond shows that there is no ruff available in that suit and indicates a club lead. As this is unauthorised information he is debarred from doing so at this turn.

But if he can win the next trick with a diamond, West is no longer in receipt of unauthorised information and so the embargo on a club lead would have been removed.

Now, as a final variant, suppose East does not play the exposed seven of diamonds but substitutes an honour card as he is entitled to do (Law 50 C). The seven of diamonds remains on the table and the ban on a club lead would remain.

South Declarer

Lead is in Dummy and Declarer is in a NT contract. The declarer says “I’ll give you the ace of spades” but this is contested. How do you rule?

Answer 3

See Note C Contested Claim (a simple summary)

In this situation, there is the obvious line of play where East wins the first trick and then has to concede three spades or three aces to the declarer.

But if East ducks the first trick South would discard H 6. But on the next trick he has to discard one of his aces. It would not be abnormal to discard A C followed by the A D when he has to find another discard. He would thus lose three tricks. It is too late for South to claim that he knew East did not have a heart (i.e. a card of the heart suit). There are several lines of normal play including this one that is least advantageous to the claimant. The TD awards three tricks to the defence.

Declarer, on lead in a club contract, claims “the diamonds are good, the rest are mine”. When challenged, he adds “Of course I will draw any outstanding trump!” How do you rule?

Answer 4

See Note C Contested Claim (a simple summary)

It is too late for the claim about drawing trumps to have any effect upon the adjudication whether or not it goes in his favour. The lines of action are

a) Declarer cashes J C and then wins a diamond next or at the end. (2 to declarer)

b) Declarer wins A D and then concedes a diamond. (5 to declarer).

c) West, bravely or foolishly, discards the 8 D on the J C and then wins the rest when Declarer plays a small diamond. (1 to declarer).

d) As in c) West discards the 8 D on the J C but Declarer cashes A D first.

(6 to declarer)

The definition of “normal” in the footnote to Law 69 is relevant. The TD would probably select a) as being the least advantageous of the normal lines of play and award the declarer only two tricks.

Declarer South

Declarer on lead in a NT contract claims the remaining tricks. How do you rule?

Answer 5

See Note C Contested Claim (a simple summary)

As the declarer believes all his cards are winners he might play them in any order. The following order could be considered normal and is the least advantageous to the claimant.

Win K H Lose Q D Discard K C on Q H Lose to 7 C

The TD should award 3 tricks to the defence

Case a)          Declarer leads D 4 from dummy and claims the rest?

Case b)          Declarer leads D 4 to his D K and claims the rest?

Case c)          Declarer leads D 4 from dummy, West concedes the ace of clubs”.

How do you rule?

Answer 6

See Note C Contested Claim (a simple summary)

Case a)          After finesse, declarer loses all. (No tricks to declarer)

Case b)          Plays K D, J D and loses 5 H (2 tricks to declarer)

     or              Plays KD then loses 5 H & A C (1 trick to declarer)

As all would be normal for a player believing all are winners, award only 1 trick to declarer

Case c)          This is treated as a concession by West, so a normal line of play least advantageous to him is chosen. Declarer wins K D, J D and 5 H (3 tricks to declarer)

Dr North is dealer and bids one heart. Miss East is just making her bid when Dr North is summoned hastily to a club member who has collapsed at the far end of the room. All is well and he returns after ten minutes or so. There is a review of the auction and he sees the bid of one spade by Miss East for the first time. He objects as that was what he intended to bid. Now what?

Answer 7

Law 25A applies and Dr North is allowed to substitute his intended call “one spade” for his actual call of “one heart” because he tried to do so without pause for thought. He was thinking very intensely during the ten minutes that he was dealing with his patient but it has been held that it is only thoughts about Bridge that matters for this purpose. If during his absence, his partner had unwisely made a call then it would have been too late for Dr North to change his call.

If the room had to be abandoned for several hours, say because of a bomb alert, the TD would probably not allow a Law 25A correction but then he would probably cancel the hands in play at all the tables.

“Until his partner makes a call, it is no offence for a player to substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought”

Is this statement correct?

Answer 8

Law 25A actually states “a player may substitute his intended call …” The wording “it is no offence” would suggest that there were no further restrictions. The difference is relevant if the next player has made a call over the original call and then wishes to change it. For the technical offender and his partner information from both withdrawn calls is unauthorised (Law16C2) but is authorised for the non-offenders.

South the dealer bids one NT and as the opponents look towards North for an announcement, he quickly says “Oh, I didn’t mean that” and replaces it with one club. Do you allow this change?

Answer 9

Law 25A only allows for an unintended call to be changed. You have to decide whether the One NT bid was a “slip of the hand” and South inadvertently pulled out the 1NT card four places away or was it more likely that there was some confusion in his mind between opening “one NT” or “one club followed by a one NT rebid”?

If you consider the first unlikely then you rule that the one NT bid stands and the one Club statement of intent conveyed unauthorised information.

Declarer South

Only the significant cards are shown. The J is led from Dummy. Declarer plays K but realises he has revoked when West plays the Q. He is obliged to correct the revoke by substituting the K and West substitutes the 8 for the queen.

1      Declarer now leads a small and finesses the 10. Is this permitted?

2      Otherwise he does not lead a spade and plays on the other suits (not shown). The TD suspects that planning the very clever squeeze against one of the opponents was helped by declarer’s knowledge of the position of the queen of spades. The TD is uncertain because he isn’t very good at squeeze play. What should he do?

Answer 10

1        South’s knowledge of the whereabouts of the queen of spades is unauthorised (Law16D2). In playing spades, he has a choice of playing the ace of spades or finessing the jack of spades. As the second is indicated by the unauthorised information he must play the ace.

2        But where the sequence is more complicated he might have some difficulty. There is no longer a general embargo when the offender could have known at the time that his irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side (Law 72B1 of 1997 Laws) but the TD could consider adjusting the score to restore equity (84D).

Declarer South

South, the Declarer in 3 NT is relieved to win the opening lead of the five of hearts with the king of hearts and is now assured of his contract. When the jack of clubs does not fall, he cannot risk a play for one overtrick in clubs so he claims his nine top tricks.

East does not notice the jack of clubs hidden among his spades. Not realising that he had revoked, he shuffles his cards as required by law and returns them to the board.

Case 1    If at some time he had realised that he had revoked is he obliged to confess?

Case 2    During the discussion before the next hand, the cards are (illegally) taken from the board and the revoke is revealed. How does the TD rule?

Case 3    Otherwise, examining the hand record sheets the following day, the irregularity is then detected. Is there any redress?

Answer 11

Case 1    Probably not. See Law 72B2 (But 79A2)

Case 2    There is still time for the TD to assess a penalty for the established revoke. (Law64B4 & 64B5) and for him to note the improper viewing of the cards.

Case 3    Probably not

Most clubs do set the Correction Period for Appeals (Law92B) and for the Correction of Scores (Law 79C) at several days in place of the 30 minutes of tournament play. During this time the TD could be asked to rule upon the revoke but he would probably rule it out of time.

What does the TD do in the following situations?

Case1 Play has finished before it is discovered that the board from the previous table has been played rather than one from the relay. Would it matter if the error had been discovered just after the auction had started?

Case 2 A wrong board is played but the error is not discovered until play has finished. One pair has played it earlier in a Howell Movement in a different direction.

Case 3 The board is correct but one pair has played it erroneously in a previous round.

Case 4 After the auction has started the correct EW pair arrives

Answer 12

Case 1 If the play of a board has been completed and none of the four players has previously played the board then the result is allowed to stand (Law 15A1) but a 10% procedural penalty is imposed upon each pair to redress the overall balance. (See Note below).

This is a fine point. “Play” is defined (4) so as to include both auction and play periods. Law15A1 does not specify completion. If a pair has started an auction with a wrong board, they will still be penalised later so they might as well complete the auction and play the board.

Cases 2 & 3 This later score is cancelled (Law 15B).

Case 4 If the auction has just started then it might be possible to recover, when only one pair is in the wrong place. Law 15C describes how a second auction can be held with the other correct pair. But if this auction does not start with the same sequence of calls the board is cancelled. In contrast to a restart after a missing card has been found (Law 13), the players are not asked if they wish to continue in this way. It would be unacceptable for a player to try and achieve the same affect by making an outrageously different bid. An adjusted score and a possible procedural penalty would be awarded.

Note: The following example indicates how the scores are adjusted.

NS6 is scheduled to play Board 13 against EW5 but erroneously plays Board 15. In consequence the later encounters NS6 v EW4 and NS12 v EW 5 have to be abandoned. The innocent pairs EW4 and NS12 are each awarded 60%. This is shown conveniently on the score sheet as

NS12 v EW4 60% : 60%

NS6 v EW5 actual score

To compensate the other pairs playing this board, NS6 and EW5 are also each penalised 10%.

South is declarer in four hearts. He calls the TD as he objects to the opening lead of the ace of hearts by West. He holds it in his own hand! How does the TD rule?

Answer 13

Clearly West or South has taken a hand from a different board. As the normal play of the board is impossible the TD awards an Artificial Score (Law 12C1). This would normally be average minus (40%) to the transgressor and otherwise average-plus (60%).

If a pair has yet to play the board from which the hand was wrongly taken, the TD would have to decide upon the status of the exposed ace of hearts applying Law 16 or (stretching a point) Law 24.

South is dealer but East bids One Club (out of rotation). The auction continues without comment. The apparent full auction is

E 1 C         S 1 D         W 1 S          N Pass
E 1 NT      S Pass       W 2 C          N Pass
E Pass       S Pass

Who is the Declarer?

When asked, South tells the TD that he did not see the 1 C by East. He knew he was the dealer and was concentrating upon his opening bid.

Answer 14

There is a conflict between Law 28B and Law 29A.

Law 28B As it was the turn of South his call is in rotation. The right to rectification is forfeited and “the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn”.

but

Law 29A: South is the LHO of East and so “may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification” The call is condoned and is NOT cancelled

There was no indication from East at the time of what he intended. His later statement suggests that in his mind his One Diamond was an opening bid. To the other players, not so concerned with this nicety, it was probably an overcall. As he did not positively “elect to call”, it could be assumed that he did not intend Law 29A to apply and the One Club stands.

In this example the indecision affects only the identity of the declarer. It could have a more significant effect but the introduction of the new rules on announcing and alerts in 2006 has removed many of the opportunities for uncertainty.

David Stevenson, the Editor of the Orange Book and the White Book advises that when their is doubt Law 28B takes precedence over Law 29A. (email to GDE 30/8/05).

See also Note D Calls out of Rotation (aide- memoire)

North opens One No-Trump announced as ’12 to 14’ followed by an out-of-rotation Pass from West. How does the TD rule?

Later it is revealed that West has a Yarborough!

Answer 15

See Note B Calls out of Rotation (aide- memoire)

For passing when it is his partner’s turn to call (Law 30B2), West is obliged to pass for the rest of the auction and East may not double at that turn.

Later it becomes clear that West, holding a worthless hand, has been saved the embarrassment of responding to a likely penalty double by his partner. If in the TD’s opinion, West could have been aware of the potential benefit of his transgression, the TD could impose an adjusted score such as 1 NT redoubled + several. (Law 23).

South is the “putative” declarer when East makes a face-up opening lead out-of-rotation. What are the five remedies from which South can choose?. Are there any other restrictions upon EW?

Answer 16

The application of the relevant Laws (54, 53, 41, 56 et al) are encapsulated in the five well known choices for the assumed declarer.

1 Accept the lead and spread dummy

2 Accept the lead and let partner play the hand

The lead is not accepted and becomes a penalty card and

3 Lead of that suit is forbidden

4 Lead of that suit is required

5 No lead restrictions

For a fuller description, see Note B Opening Leads

South is declarer in a contract of six hearts when East faces the five of diamonds out of turn.. South listens to his five options from the TD, rejects the out-of-turn lead and requires West to lead a Diamond.

West cannot comply. Can South now impose any other condition?

West then leads a club to East’s Ace. What restrictions are there upon the next lead by East?

Answer 17

See Note B Opening Leads

It is too late for declarer to impose other restrictions. (Law 59). That West has no diamonds is authorised information for all so East may lead whatever he wishes.

The knowledge that West could ruff a diamond was revealed not from the transgression by East but rather from the misjudgement by South.

a)   North has 14 cards, East has 12 cards. Neither North nor East has looked at their hands.

b)   North has bid one club before realising he has 14 cards.

c)   West has found the hand record for East in his slot before looking at his hand.

d)   South has 13 cards but none agrees with the hand record

e)   The auction has finished and the opening lead faced before it is realised that dummy has only 12 cards.

Answer 18

a)   If no player has seen another’s cards, then the board can be played normally. The hands must be corrected as described in Law 13D1. A TD participating in the competition who has yet to play the board will rely upon players at the previous table to carry out the corrections.

b)   The hand is corrected as above. The TD could decide that the corrections were probably not significant and can require that the board should be played and scored normally. Otherwise he assigns an artificial adjusted score as specified in Law12C1 according to the responsibility of each contestant for the irregularity. He may also do this at the end of play if he then decides that irregularity did affect the outcome of the board.

c)   The board is corrected as above. TD determines who has seen what and makes a similar judgement

d) & e) The board cannot be played. Adjusted scores are assigned.

If the discrepancy could not have been detected in time then both pairs are compensated with average+ scores. But the rest of the field are marginally disadvantaged. If the offenders can be identified a procedural penalty imposed to redress the balance so that only they are penalised.

West leads the king of spades from the top of his touching honours against a contract of four hearts and is pleased to see Q J 7 6 of hearts in dummy. His K 5 of hearts is now an assured entry for his Q J 6 of spades.

Declare wins ace of spades and leads a small heart. West is about to jump in eagerly with his king of hearts when he sees his partner has already played the ace of hearts out of rotation. Relieved to have avoided clashing with his partner and losing his precious entry. West plays his small heart. Does Declarer have any redress?

Answer 19

The ace of hearts becomes a major penalty card and must be played at the first legal opportunity. This alone is little help to declarer but he does benefit from Law 57A1. He can now require West to play the highest card of that suit.

Declarer South

West is winning the penultimate trick of a NT contract with his K D. Partner East is pondering whether to discard the K S or the A C when West solves his problem by leading the J S prematurely.

What redress has declarer?

Would it be different if, before leading K D, West claimed the remaining tricks?

Answer 20

Law 57 describes the options. The Declarer cannot insist that East discards the king of spades but he can forbid East from playing a club (Law 57A3). Declarer must of course be aware of the outstanding suits.

A very good player in the East position would have been well aware that the only hidden cards were the two of clubs, jack of spades or the queen of spades and that he could safely discard the ace of clubs. But then, despite the suspicion to the contrary, the Laws are designed for the benefit of mere mortals.

If the TD decided that West, either explicitly or otherwise was making a claim then he would rule differently. He would require all the hands to be faced (see Note C) and then the line of play requiring the discard of the king of spades would be obvious.

Board 1 is passed out. South, seeing a pass card from East at the start of Board 2, bids one club. East claims that he had not yet called. The pass card was still there from the first board.

What is an equitable solution countenanced by Law and Regulation?

Answer 21

Orange Book 7B2 says that a call is “……made when the call is removed from bidding box with apparent intent” so it would be reasonable to say that East had not yet called on the second board.

East was planning to make a call. Any action or inaction by East was not intended. Law 25 only refers to substituting an intended call for an unintended call not for an inadvertent inaction but this is probably the best solution.

The TD should rule that East should make his intended call and that South can withdraw his one club bid under the conditions covered by Law 25A4

When the TD arrived at a table he was told that there were 14 cards in the North slot and only 12 in the East slot. The error had gone unnoticed at the previous table where a claim for the last six tricks was accepted. The TD was called again after the hands had been corrected and the auction started. East had opened with a “weak two” where previously with only 12 cards he had passed. The TD had not been told that the auction has started before he was called for the first time.

What Action?

Answer 22

As the TD had not been told that the auction had started he applied Law 13 A and allowed the auction to continue. When he realised that he had not been completely informed, under Law 82C, he should consider the requirements of the whole of Law 13 again.

The information gained from the difference between the two auctions could be considered inconsequential. The players only know that East now has a hand that is suitable for a weak two opening that was not suitable with one card fewer.

In these circumstances, Law 13A allows the continuation of the auction and play. Otherwise, he abandons the hand assigning an artificial 40% to both sides. This might be considered generous.

South told the Director that he had alerted his partner’s two diamond overcall of one No Trump. When asked by East, he had explained that it was the “Paracetamol Convention” that showed either a weak two-suiter or a good raise to two no-trumps. East, after some consideration, had then passed. South now wished to reserve his rights because he understood from the Orange Book .that players shouldn’t ask questions and then pass.

1 What does reserving Rights mean?

2 What should the TD do now?

Answer 23

Here are some relevant extracts from the Law Book and the Orange Book

Orange Book 3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest …… then this is unauthorised information.

Law Book 16B After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play….. 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.

Law 40A3 A player may make any call or play without prior announcement providing such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

East-West do have to be careful but this embargo on asking questions is much overdone. Their opponents must also be careful. South in answering must not alert his partner particularly if they have only adopted the convention recently. Perhaps North-South should also be asked “Are you certain that your opponents know what you are doing? Perhaps you should welcome this opportunity of meeting your obligation under Law 40.”

With a non-playing TD the players have correctly called the TD so that he can establish the facts and advise upon any future action. It is a two stage judgement. Only after the end of play does he have to make a ruling. If the TD is also competing in the competition and the players have genuinely agreed upon the facts then there is no need to interrupt the TD at that stage. They can agree that the right has been reserved to call the TD later...

If when the TD is called later there is no ready agreement upon the facts then he should be highly critical. Either one pair has had a change of mind or was pressed into agreeing originally. The TD should look out for any form of intimidation that often goes with the claim to “Reserve Rights”. It can often take the form of “Be careful what you do or I’ll get the Director to sort you out later!”

The specific answer to questions

1 This is a meaningless statement. A player can only reserve the right to call the TD later.

2 Explain to both parties how they must not be influenced by information from partner.

Case 1    Declarer (South) leads towards dummy. His call for the queen to be played from ace queen is hurriedly changed when the king is played by West. Is this allowed?

Case 2    Declarer (South) calls for the six of hearts from dummy. East, sorting his hand, designates the seven of hearts. Declarer plays the eight of hearts and then East places the nine of hearts on the table. Would you allow this?

Case 3    As above but East places the king of hearts on the Table.

Answer 24

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching if from the hand and facing it on the table. (Law 45A). But if a player designates a proposed card from his hand, then Law 45C4 (a) requires it should be played. This is not the preferred way to play a card but it is permitted.

There is no provision for changing a card placed inadvertently but Law 45C4 (b) does allow an unintended designation to be changed in a similar way to an unintended call during the auction. This distinction is reasonable. Designating a card does not prove that the player actually holds it...

The Law concerning play from Dummy is subtlety different. A card is deemed played when declarer names it (Law45B). Dummy’s placing of a card is just an administrative chore

Case 1   Not allowed. This is a change of mind.

Case 2   Perhaps but East would need to convince the TD that it was not a change of mind by showing his hand away from the table.

Case 3   Not allowed (unless king was a singleton). This is hardly unintended.

The following hand, held by W, meets none of these requirements

S   10 9 2
H   A K 7 6 5 4 3
D   void
C   A K 3

It has the traditional 8 playing tricks of an Acol two bid but not eight clear-cut tricks (it would not yield 8 tricks with H Q J 10 9 8 in one opponent’s hand). It has only 24 opening points and only 14 HCPs

As TD, how would you rule?

Case 1   W opens “Two Hearts”    E announces “Strong, Forcing”

Case 2   W opens “Two Clubs”     E alerts and describes it as Benji Strong 8 playing tricks

Case 3   W opens “One Club”       E alerts and describes the bid as Precision 16 HCPs

Answer 25

Case 1   This is a legal bid as the meaning includes at least four cards in the suit bid (Orange Book 11G2b). But it should not have been described as “Strong”. The TD should tell EW that they are permitted to open “two hearts” with such a hand but must announce it as “intermediate to strong”. A procedural penalty would not normally be imposed for a first offence.

Meanwhile the opponents would be entitled to an adjusted score if they could demonstrate that they had been damaged and they would have acted differently if it had been described correctly as intermediate/strong. This is unlikely.

Case 2   This agreement is illegal. The hand does not meet the requirement of the Extended Rule of 25 and, as a conventional bid, it does not meet the requirement of 11G3a. The play of the hand is completed and then the score is adjusted as described in White Book 90.4.2. The opponents do not have to show that they have been damaged.

Case 3   The agreement as described by East is legal. (see OB 11C3) but the hand does not meet this description. There could be a range of explanations.

West miscounted his hand. Believing he had 16 HCPs he misbid his hand. No penalty.

West knew the agreement but decided that this hand was worth 16 HCPs because of the distribution and thought that One Club described the hand better than any other bid. Unless he could convince the TD that this had never happened before, that his partner was completely unaware of the deviation then the TD would rule that there was an implicit understanding and that it was illegal. He would adjust the score as in 2 above.

Declarer wins the opening lead and then draws two rounds of trumps. Whilst he deliberates, Dummy is heard to say something about “spending the night on the embankment”. Declarer then draws the last remaining trump and continues with the rest of the hand. The Director is called as the opposition are not happy with this comment by Dummy. The TD quotes from Law 43A1(c)

   “Dummy must not …..communicate anything about the play to declarer”

and from Law43 B1

   “Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation ……”

Consequently he tells Dummy that his action was wrong but as it was a first offence he would not be imposing a points penalty. Is this correct?

Answer 26

The White Book 90.3 recommends that

“a procedural penalty under Law 90 is normally…..a warning in the first instance …”

but it is up to the Tournament Organizer to say whether or not it wants the TD to be tough or tolerant. Unless a policy of “Zero Tolerance” has been stipulated, issuing a warning would be correct and should be sufficient to promote better behaviour.

But this may not be the end of the matter. By definition, Dummy is Declarer’s partner. So Law 16B applies as much to Dummy and Declarer as it does to the two defenders. The warning that there was still an outstanding trump by Dummy was unauthorised. The TD has to consider whether the circumstances warranted an adjusted score (Law 73C and 16B)

At the time of the offence, the Declarer had a choice of logical alternative actions (Law16B1b). The illicit comment probably did not indicate a particular action but did indicate that there was a choice of actions. If failure to draw the last trump could have lost a trick then the TD might consider adjusting the score to rectify any damage done by the remark. A procedural penalty is not intended to do this and would do little to rectify any damage done to the defenders.

Readers may find it worthwhile having prints of this concise index pasted into their copies of the Law Book. It shows the sections most often needed at the Table.

Concise Index of Commonly used Laws

Section

13            Incorrect No. of Cards

14           Missing Cards

15           Play of Wrong Boards

16 &73  Unauthorised Information

21          Call based upon Misinformation

AUCTION

24         Cards exposed

25         Change of Call

27         Insufficient Bid

28-34    Call out of Rotation

40 & 75 Partnership Understanding

PLAY

42-43    Dummy’s Rights

45-47    Card Played

48-52    Penalty Card

53-56    Lead out of Turn

57         Premature Play by Defender

61-64   Revoke

67        Defective Tricks

68-71  Claim or Concession

Before the player on the declarer’s left can make the proper lead, his right hand opponent makes a face-up lead out of turn.

Except in this one situation, a Tournament Director, however knowledgeable, is advised to “read from the Book” when giving a ruling at the table. The relevant Laws are dispersed and somewhat confusing yet the correct ruling can be summarised as five choices. A competent TD is expected to know these without reference to the Law Book.

The intended declarer, without consulting partner, must choose.

1) Accept the lead, set his hand out as dummy and let his partner play the hand. (Law 54A)

2) Accept the lead, spread the dummy and play the next card from his own hand. (Law 54B)

Otherwise, he rejects the lead and requires the correct opponent to lead and the card illegally led becomes a major penalty card (Law 54D).

The Declarer may then (Law 50D)

3) Forbid the lead of a card of the same suit. Penalty card is picked up (Law 50D2a)

4) Require the lead of a card of the same suit. Penalty card is picked up (Law 50D2a)

5) Impose no restriction (Law 50D2b)

The disposition of the opening lead is authorised information for all but inferences drawn from it are authorised only to the non-offending declarer

Use this to understand the relevant Laws 68 – 71.

1   All play ceases after the claim. Playing-on is not an option. Any play subsequent to a claim is voided.

2   The TD asks the claimant to repeat the claim as made at the time without any later embellishment. The other players agree the statement. If play had continued (though illegal) the TD could use the action taken as a clarification of the claim.

3   The TD asks all players to face their hands even though some will be reticent.

4   He then hears objections to the claim by the opponents. With all hands exposed he then considers the ways in which play could have proceeded. He rejects any action that does not fit with the original statement of the claimant and considers the other normal lines of play including the careless and inferior.

5   The players themselves can often be helpful in identifying normal but unusual courses of action, often contrary to their own self-interest.

6   The TD then accepts the remaining one that is least advantageous to the claimant.

Use this to understand the relevant Laws but Quote from the Book when ruling.

Preliminary Any call out of rotation can be accepted (Laws 28B & 29A)

Out-of-rotation Pass (Law 30)

Normal penalty is “Offender must Pass Next time”

but more severe at partner’s turn

Out-of-rotation Bid (Law 31)

Normal penalty is “Partner must pass for the rest of the auction”

but less severe at RHO’s turn

Out-of-rotation Double, Redouble and Conventional Pass (Law 32)

Treat as an out-of-rotation bid where it is relevant

Lead Restrictions (Law 26)

Awareness of Potential Damage (Law23)