The World Bridge Federation updates the Laws of Duplicate Bridge every ten years. The latest edition has been published this summer and the EBU will be applying the new Laws in its events from the 1^st August 2017. Clubs in England are required to introduce the 2017 Laws by the end of September, which will allow more time for directors and players to get up to speed with the changes.  Useful summaries are here New Laws Summary.docx   or here New Laws poster.pdf.

For Players, probably the first thing to notice is that the current board must be kept in the centre of the table, in the correct orientation.  This will help reduce mis-boarding.

In terms of everyday play the key changes with which Directors need to be most familiar relate to

(1) the introduction of the concept of a “Comparable Call” and the implications for proceeding after an Insufficient Bid or a Call out of Turn (incl subsequent lead penalties);

(2) Claims and concessions;

(3) when the wrong players sit down at a table and play the wrong boards.

However there are, as you would expect, a number of minor adjustments in other areas. Of course it will take time for us all to become used to these changes, but you will find that the role of the director should overall have been made a bit easier and players will more often be able to continue play with a minimum of disruption.

• New Law Books are available for sale at a price of £8 from the Bridge Warehouse. http://www.ebu.co.uk/bridge-warehouse
• The EBU has a webpage providing information and downloads for all the relevant information : http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/new-laws-2017
• The Blue Book of EBU regulations is updated for the start of August every year, and the 2017 version is available to download from the EBU website. This will incorporate the impact of the new Laws as necessary along with any other changes for the current regulations. http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/blue-book

Taken from White Book August 2018

Law 27 Insufficient Bid

8.27.1 How to deal with an insufficient bid

When called to the table the TD should not automatically take players away but should always be ready to do so at the first sign that it might be necessary. Try to stop the offending player from saying anything – giving away less information sometimes increases the options open to them.  If the offending bid could well be an unintended call, the offender should be given an opportunity to say so – but the TD should not ask directly. 
Sometimes players will already have given so much unauthorised information that there is no point in trying to mitigate it; other times the situation will seem so clear that there is unlikely to be any need to find out any more before ruling. 
What the TD should do is effectively to read (or better, paraphrase) the law as it is before allowing LHO to exercise their options.  In presenting the options for replacement calls for offender, the TD should take account of the actual auction and concentrate on the options that are likely to be relevant.  
Before deciding whether to accept, LHO does not have a right to know whether the offender had a non-barring replacement call available nor whether intending to use it. They may however ask questions about system and make their own decision based on that if they wish. 
Something like:

You have the right to accept the insufficient bid if you wish and if you do the auction will continue without any further adjustment. Otherwise there are three possibilities  

(a) if the insufficient bid [specifies a denomination] and is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination the auction will just carry on from there.

(b) Otherwise, the insufficient bid may be corrected with a legal call (which in this case could be a double, redouble or pass) that is a ‘Comparable Call’.  That is a call that has at least as precise meaning as the insufficient bid. [It seems quite unlikely that such a call would be available in this case, but nevertheless the option is there if you think you can use it*]. If so the auction will just carry on from there but if you think this option might apply we should probably go away from the table to discuss it further before you make your decision

*insert this if appropriate

(c) Failing either of those two possibilities, the insufficient bid must be corrected by a sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double), the offender’s partner would be barred from bidding for the rest of the hand and there will be lead penalties if the offending side ends up defending. 

In any of these instances, if the offending side appears to have gained from the insufficient bid there is a possibility that the result could be adjusted afterwards. 

Then: 
So now the first decision is for LHO of offender: do you wish to accept the bid?

If yes, obviously everything carries on from there. If no, ask the offendimg player if they need to go away to discuss things further or if they are happy to make their decision now. 

If a player does make a decision without having any discussion with the TD, you may need to check with them afterwards that you are satisfied that they were entitled to do what they did. Otherwise, Law 27D (or Law 23C) might apply.

If the TD did go away from the table to find out whether or not a (non-barring) replacement bid was available, you should not say anything either way when you go back to the table. They may be able to work it out when the player makes the replacement call, but they weren’t entitled to know that before deciding whether or not to accept.  
 

Taken from White Book, August 2018

8.16.2 What does a hesitation mean?

The L&EC considers that:

(a) A hesitation followed by a pass would normally be willing to hear partner bid on

(b) A hesitation followed by a minimum bid after RHO’s pass would normally have something in hand

(c) A hesitation followed by a penalty double is normally willing to see it removed

However, in cases such as 

Example W N E     1 Pass 3 (slow)

East might be considering a number of actions, i.e. the pause could have suggested either a 2½ or a 3½ bid.

8.16.3 Weighting when an action is disallowed (‘Reveley’ rulings)

If a call (or play) is disallowed because the TD judges that an illegal alternative was chosen when unauthorised information was present then this call or play may not be used in any calculations of weighting (see Law 12C1 (c)). Note that it is possible for the result to be included when it might have been reached in another way. 

Suppose that there were other possible calls (or plays) that would also have been disallowed if chosen. Then they may not be included in any calculations of weighting either. This may include later actions.

Illegal rulings which do include a weighting corresponding to a disallowed action are referred to by the EBU as ‘Reveley’ rulings.

8.16.4 ‘Hesitation Blackwood’

The responder to a Blackwood bid is normally expected to accept their partner’s decision, and when that decision is after a pause for thought, responder is not permitted to continue except when partner ‘cannot’ have a hand on which slam will fail. (See EBU Appeals 2000, hand 2.)

While this is the normal case there are particular positions where it might be acceptable for a player to continue, which include: • Responder holds an unshown but useful void. • After a response showing 0/3, 0/4 or 1/4, responder has the higher value.

8.16.5 A short hesitation after an unexpected call

A short hesitation following an unexpected call by an opponent would not necessarily be considered to be a departure from normal tempo or to transmit significant unauthorised information.

8.16.6 Logical alternative

8.16.6.1 Is an action a logical alternative?

When deciding whether an action constitutes a logical alternative, the TD should decide two things.

1. The TD must decide whether a significant proportion of the player’s peers, playing the same methods as the player, would seriously consider the action.

What is a ‘significant proportion’?  The laws do not specify a figure, but the TD should assume that it means at least one player in five.

If fewer than about one player in five of a player’s peers would consider the action then it is not a logical alternative.

Serious consideration is more than a passing thought.

2. If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD must next decide whether some would actually choose it.

Again the laws do not specify a figure for ‘some’, and the TD should assume that it means more than just an isolated exception.

If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is not a logical alternative.

8.16.6.2  Method

Asking players for opinions is helpful in deciding whether an action would be considered and chosen, but the questions should be carefully presented. 

For example, in a hesitation case players should be given the problem without reference to the hesitation. The TD should ask them what they would call after the given sequence, telling them the methods employed. If their answer is not the action under consideration, they should be asked what alternatives they considered.

Such polls will help to give the TD an idea of whether an action is a logical alternative. If a TD takes a poll and then it goes to appeal the TD should write the results of the poll on the form.

8.16.6.3 General

These definitions are modified somewhat if there are several possible alternatives. For example, if there are six or seven apparent actions, and it would be expected that each would have people making such calls then they are all logical alternatives. Example West opened 1, North passed slowly and East passed. The TD might conclude that pass, 1NT, double, 2 and 2 might all be considered and found by a similar number of the player’s peers, so all are logical alternatives.

Knowledge of the player is used when deciding what players of equal ability might do. If the player is unknown to the TD or Appeals Committee it is best to assume the player is average for the competition.

8.16.7 Did anyone hesitate?

When a TD is called for an alleged hesitation they should immediately try to ascertain, as a matter of fact, whether a hesitation has taken place. To make a ruling that a hesitation has, or has not, occurred by looking at the hand away from the table and judging whether the player concerned had anything to think about should be a last resort. 

When there is a jump bid, the mandated ten seconds pause by left hand opponent is free thinking time (whether or not the Stop card was used). Any alleged pause is above and beyond that time. The TD should be satisfied whether the Stop card was used and that the hesitation was beyond the required ten seconds – the players may be ignoring the Stop card regulations.

Below is guidance on the use of Bridgemates from the EBU (White Book)

Bridgemate protocol The following is published in EBU competition programmes regarding the use of Bridgemates:
North (or South) is responsible for entering the contract and result into the Bridgemate, and East (or West) must be shown it to verify its accuracy by pressing the ACCEPT button.
It is best to enter the contract, declarer and lead at the end of the auction – this saves time, reduces the risk of entering the wrong board number, and ensures the lead is fresh in your mind. 
Entering the lead accurately not only provides extra information of interest to players, but can also assist the scorer in resolving errors of data entry.
It is an offence to attempt to access the TD screen or change a score in the Bridgemate without calling the TD.

If a score is entered and accepted;
If the sitting pair at a table does not check they have the right opponents this merits a warning only for the first offence. Making a board unplayable by scoring on the electronic scorer against the wrong board number and seeing the results from a board not yet played is scored AVE-/AVE- assuming both pairs had the chance to stop the error (N/S when scoring, E/W when agreeing the score).  Exception to this may be made, for example a new Pair / Visitor that have not used Bridgemates before.

Link to the EBU site

Link to EBU site

Link to EBU site

Link to EBU site