Law 22: Procedure after the Auction has closed.
There may be no redeal because no player has bid. The hands are returned to the board without play.
A Director should caution and penalise a pair for improper procedure when they should know better and reshuffle a board without the permission of the Director.
The main reasons for this are:
- a player in 4th seat with a 12 count in Aces and a balanced hand, knowing that a redeal is possible, may throw the hand in, whereas others will open.
- some players in 1st and 2nd seat, especially vulnerable, will not open 'light' on the rule of 19, whereas others will.
- some players, 3rd in hand, especially non-vulnerable against vulnerable, may open very 'light' one of a suit (rule of 18), whereas others will pass - thus if a hand is passed out they would not have had a chance to bid when the board is played later.
- some players will not open a 'light' 1NT in 4th position (11 HCPs), knowing that there is a redeal possible, whereas others will.
AND FINALLY -the score on the board is ZERO (not an average)!
From the World Bridge Federation' guidance to the Laws:
"It is specifically contrary to law 22 to redeal because no player has bid. The hands are returned to the board without play. The intention of the laws is that the hand should comprise random deals; if a board is redealt in these circumstances that defeats the aim of randomness. Furthermore, players are not to impose their own style for opening bids on other players: subject to any system regulations for the tournament, every player has the right to judge for himself/herself what hand he/she will open - and every opponent has the right to punish unsound opening bids, where he/she has an opportunity."
|