Spade Heart Sapphire Coast Bridge Club Diamond Club
Sapphire Coast Bridge Club
GNOT results
(24,25 November)

The National Final of the GNOT at Tweed Heads has just been completed.

Our club was represented by Lewis Seychell, Colin Manley, John Bentley, Di Woolford and Dorothea Bonney-McCoy having earned the right to compete by defeating all other NSW South Coast clubs in a playoff.

In the National final, our team finished 36th in a field of 60, having won 5 out of the 9 matches, a very good effort considering the field quality.

In the Swiss Pairs (field of 94 pairs), run on the Sunday, Dorothea and Jack Kuiper (Gippsland) fared extremely well finishing 14th. Lewis and Colin  finished 35th, and John and Di 39th.


Teams Championship

Well done to Norma Gowing, Pat Clark, Colin Manley and Lewis Seychell on their win in the Teams Championship.

Second in the competition was the John Bentley, Di Woolford, Heather York and Dianne Hinde team.

The handicap title (Norma Gowing trophy) went to Jane Scott, Ruth Caldwell, Brian Riches, Glenda Guest, winning from Jenny Kyle, Beata Denkiewicz, Margaret Gaunson, John Scrivener, Helen Fisher.

For full results, look under the competition tab above.


Recent Updates
9th Jan 2018 10:30 ESTA
Home Page
20th Dec 2017 10:53 ESTA
Rule Interpretations and Guidance
16th Dec 2017 09:00 ESTA
Other Users
7th Nov 2017 16:42 ESTA
0 0 0 0 0 0
Pages viewed in 2018
Rule Interpretations and Guidance

Click on an item below to open a new window and display good guidance from the experts.

Some changes to the laws of duplicate Bridge


A look at the most important changes to the Laws

Partnership agreements: When a player has given wrong information about a partnership agreement and becomes aware of it during the auction {Law20F4 (a)}, he is no longer obliged to rectify it immediately, but may wait till the auction is completed.


The concept of a ‘comparable call’ has been introduced in a brand new Law (23). The old Law 23 Awareness of Potential Damage has moved to Law 72C.

If a player replaces his illegal call with a comparable call, then the consequences will be less severe than in the old laws. The benefit of this is that in most cases partner is no longer silenced for the entire auction, and hence removes the need to select a unilateral (gambling) final action. When an Illegal Call is made (Insufficient bid, pass or bid or double out of rotation) and it is required to be rectified, the illegal call, if  replaced by a comparable call allows the auction to proceed without rectification.


NS are playing Standard American.

  1. North is Dealer however South passes. West does not accept South’s Pass. North opens 1♥ and East passes. South could pass. Being the same call there is no further rectification.
  2. South might bid 1NT showing 6-9 hcp. Hands with 6-9 hcp are a Subset of a hand with which South would pass as dealer so 1NT satisfies the comparable call test.
  3. North is Dealer however South passes. West does not accept South’s Pass. North opens 1♥ and East passes. Perhaps South bids 1♠ showing 6+ points and 4 spades. This is not a comparable call as the open ended HCP range is more than that of a hand on which South would pass as dealer. North must now pass at his next turn.
  4. Perhaps South bids 2♥ as a minimum raise. He would have passed as dealer with such a hand so North may call unrestricted.

Claims or concessions: When a player makes a claim or concession, that player is now required to face his hand.