2007 Laws released

[paulg]

The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge were adopted by the Executive Council of the World Bridge Federation at its meeting on 12th October 2007, and are now available for NBOs to obtain and translate or typeset as required. There is a document in Word format and a copy of the complete document in PDF format.

 

These can be downloaded from http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/2007laws.asp.

 

The 2007 Laws will be adopted between January 1 and September 30 2008, depending on your local authority.

[1eyedjack]

It would have been nice if it had included a document that listed the changes from the previous laws.

 

I wonder whether they might not have taken the opportunity to amalgamate the online and offline laws.

[blackshoe]

It would have been nice if it had included a document that listed the changes from the previous laws.

 

I wonder whether they might not have taken the opportunity to amalgamate the online and offline laws.

When I went to that link, what I saw was a side-by-side comparison of the 1997 and 2007 laws, with the changes highlighted. Did you see something different?

 

AFAIR, there is very little significant difference between the 1997 "online" and "offline" laws - the latter mostly just giving leeway to online sites to write programs that don't technically follow the "offline" laws if they feel like it - which they do. :) I don't expect that situation to change in the near future.

[1eyedjack]

When I went to that link, what I saw was a side-by-side comparison of the 1997 and 2007 laws, with the changes highlighted. Did you see something different?

Ah, found it, thanks.

 

It is still going to take some considerable effort to sift out the wheat from the chaff.

 

Oh, and the link to the PDF version, when i download it, just give bullet points instead of card symbols. Is that just my machine?

[barmar]

I just went through all the side-by-side comparisons. Here are most of the significant changes that I noticed:

 

The word "penalty" is throughout changed to "rectification". This better connotes the idea of restoring equity, rather than punishing. Punishment suggests that the offending side did something on purpose.

 

9B1a: Summoning the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity changed from "must" to "should". Are they just accepting the fact that players don't always call the TD religiously?

 

16A2: This makes it clear that you're allowed to vary your style based on the type of game. You can bid games more aggressively at IMPs, you can preempt more when playing against a much better pair, etc.

 

16B1b: A clear definition of "logical alternative" is now provided.

 

20F3: This authorizes asking a question about a specific call. There have been numerous debates over whether you're allowed to ask specific questions or just for an explanation of the entire auction.

 

20G1: Asking a question solely for partner's benefit is now expressly forbidden.

 

20G2: You normally can't look at your own convention card, but the regulating authority can waive this. This is presumably directed towards special games, such as games that prescribe a particular system, or Individuals where a common method of system "discussion" is that one player hands the other one the CC he would like to use for that round.

 

27C1: This is a BIGGIE: The old rule about insufficient bids, where either the attempted bid or a sufficient version of it are conventional bars partner, has been removed. Now it just says that if the replacement bid carries essentially the same meaning as the insufficient bid, the auction continues normally and the insufficient bid is authorized information to both sides. At the end of the hand the TD should judge whether the insufficient bid damaged the NOS, and if so he can adjust the score.

 

30 and 31: An out-of-rotation pass of partner's artificial bid is subject to the same rules as an out-of-rotation artificial pass.

 

40b2d: "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." I guess this puts that old debate to rest.

 

55A: They've said who wins if the defenders don't agree on whether to accept declarer leading from the wrong hand: the next player in rotation. But do they mean the next player in normal rotation, or the next player after the incorrect hand?

 

57C1: Declarer can play a singleton from dummy by nodding. :)

 

65B3: A defender or dummy is now allowed to point out that someone, including declarer or their partner, has pointed a quitted trick the wrong way, but only until a lead is made to the next trick.

 

69B2: The old wording about withdrawing a concession because a trick would not have been lost in any "normal play of the remaining cards" has been removed. Now it says "his side would likely have won had the play continued." So TD's are no longer required to judge between "careless" and "irrational", they just have to figure out what would likely have happened, which is similar to judgements they have to make in many other cases of adjusting the score. However, this old wording still appears in other places in the claim laws.

 

76A2: Vugraph is acknowledged. And in case you're wondering, Vugraph watchers are not allowed to communicate with the players.

[barmar]

Oh, and the link to the PDF version, when i download it, just give bullet points instead of card symbols. Is that just my machine?

They're correct in the DEFINITIONS section, but I see the bullets in Law 1 and Law 75. I'm on a Mac.

[Echognome]

I just went through all the side-by-side comparisons. Here are most of the significant changes that I noticed:

<snip>

Thank you for the summary of changes. Makes it much quicker to realize the changes that are occurring.

[jdonn]

In general, these seem to me like changes for the better. There are a few I either don't quite understand or don't feel strongly about, but all the others I agree with.

 

The closest I come to disagreeing with is stating regulating bodies have the right to restrict psychic bidding. I believe they should have this right but in practice never or virtually never use it. Sort of like how I feel about abortion.

[david_c]

I just went through all the side-by-side comparisons.  Here are most of the significant changes that I noticed:

You missed this very important one:

 

64: The revoke penalties have been changed: if the revoker does not win the revoke trick then the penalty is always one trick. [strictly speaking they're not called penalties any more.]

 

Also a couple which are rather less important, but were a pain in the old lawbook:

 

25B2 (allowing intentional changes of call) has been effectively deleted.

 

40: The "regulating authority" can now allow/disallow any partnership understanding, regardless of whether it is conventional.

[TimG]

Thanks for the summary, barmar.

 

9B1a: Summoning the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity changed from "must" to "should".  Are they just accepting the fact that players don't always call the TD religiously?

Maybe they are accepting that it is not always necessary, that players can sometimes fix things by themselves in a much quicker fashion.

 

Or, as in the case from the BB where declarer let the defender pick up a card that would have otherwise been a penalty card, sometimes a player can now waive a penalty without being in violation of the Laws for not first calling the director and asking him to waive the penalty.

 

I don't think the change is because players don't always call the director. But rather a concession (of sorts) that those who don't always call the director weren't really doing anything that should have been wrong.

[TimG]

40: The "regulating authority" can now allow/disallow any partnership understanding, regardless of whether it is conventional.

This strikes me a a significant change. One that I think is a step in the wrong direction.

[david_c]

40: The "regulating authority" can now allow/disallow any partnership understanding, regardless of whether it is conventional.

This strikes me a a significant change. One that I think is a step in the wrong direction.

But, as Richard pointed out in another thread, many authorities currently use a "fudge" to get around the restriction, by disallowing conventional continuations (which in most cases makes the agreement virtually unplayable) rather than disallowing the bid itself. So this Law change won't really make much difference in practice.

 

Actually I think this change is a very good thing. The current restriction on SOs just led to a lot of tedious lawyering, both on the part of the SOs themselves (by trying to get around it) and by some trouble-making players (who, faced with SO regulations that they didn't like, either tried to get the regulations ruled illegal, or ignored them and claimed that they had legal justification for doing so).

[Free]

40b2d: "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." I guess this puts that old debate to rest.

 

Pay attention to the word "artificial"! This means any natural bid can still be a psych, and no local authority has the power to forbid this B)

[Fluffy]

The closest I come to disagreeing with is stating regulating bodies have the right to restrict psychic bidding. I believe they should have this right but in practice never or virtually never use it. Sort of like how I feel about abortion.

40b2d: "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls."

 

I read this wrong the first time thinking it sais regulate psyches, but upone rereading it says artificial bidding psyche, not any artificial.

[yoder]

40b2d: "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." I guess this puts that old debate to rest.

 

Pay attention to the word "artificial"! This means any natural bid can still be a psych, and no local authority has the power to forbid this :)

Including the BBO TDs.

[paulg]

40b2d: "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." I guess this puts that old debate to rest.

 

Pay attention to the word "artificial"! This means any natural bid can still be a psych, and no local authority has the power to forbid this B)

Including the BBO TDs.

Only if they are running a tournament under these Laws.

 

At the moment many do not run using the 1997 Laws and that it is unlikely to change. These tournaments seem as successful as others and I don't see anything wrong in running them this way, even if I do not want to play in them myself.

 

BBO is, and should remain, a broad church.

 

Paul

[blackshoe]

Those of us who run games, wherever we do so, do it for the players. If the players are happy playing something that isn't quite "[Duplicate] Contract Bridge" according to the laws, more power to 'em. I think it's incumbent on what the new laws call "tournament organizers" though to state up front that the laws don't apply, if that's the case.

[jtfanclub]

Also- 27B1, an insufficient bid CAN be replaced by an X or XX.

 

I'm not sure if 43B3 is a clarification or a change, but now if dummy calls director for an irregularity, it's clear that the director waits until after tha hand, adjusts it normally, then may impose additional penalties.

 

 

67B1- failure to play on a trick at all is now a 1 trick penalty and treated as a revoke. Previously, it could be no penalty.

 

 

Overall, I like the changes. Still some other things I wouldn't mind, but this is decidedly an improvement.

[barmar]

The closest I come to disagreeing with is stating regulating bodies have the right to restrict psychic bidding.

Only psychic artificial bidding. And the Laws Commission has previously mentioned that the old Laws allowed this, through their authorization to regulate conventions. So nothing has really changed, they've just made the status quo explicit in the Laws.

 

So, the ACBL's prohibition on psyching strong, artificial, forcing openings is now expressly permitted. Previously it was necessary to refer to an interpretation ruling.

[barmar]

Thanks for the summary, barmar.

 

9B1a: Summoning the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity changed from "must" to "should".  Are they just accepting the fact that players don't always call the TD religiously?

Maybe they are accepting that it is not always necessary, that players can sometimes fix things by themselves in a much quicker fashion.

 

Or, as in the case from the BB where declarer let the defender pick up a card that would have otherwise been a penalty card, sometimes a player can now waive a penalty without being in violation of the Laws for not first calling the director and asking him to waive the penalty.

 

I don't think the change is because players don't always call the director. But rather a concession (of sorts) that those who don't always call the director weren't really doing anything that should have been wrong.

Someone in r.g.b described this as the "be nice to novices" rule. If a beginner makes a simple mistake, like declarer accidentally exposing a card, an experienced opponent can simply tell him "pick it up and play on" rather than rattling him further by calling the TD.

[mycroft]

...Which, of course, makes it worse when someone does "call the cops" on the novices. Because they never learn that nobody's impugning anything, it's just that a referee is needed to review what's going on.

 

And, of course, some "experts" say "I could call the TD on that, but I won't" and think they're being gracious, when in fact it's both intimidating (again, implying "calling the TD is saying 'you're bad'") and frequently inaccurate (yeah, he could call the TD, but the TD is going to say "well, actually, that isn't the Law" or "yep, you shouldn't do that, and this is why, but there was no damage, so score stands"). Some "experts" say "I could call the TD on that, but I won't" as an intimidation tool (yes, I know some "experts" also call the TD as an intimidation tool. I don't approve of that, either. There's a right way and a wrong way to call the TD, and if we could stamp out the "call the cops" image from everybody, including the "experts", things would work better).

 

I like it in the "yeah, we all know the rules, nobody's going to raise a fuss about this, let's just keep going" mode - but I *definitely* wouldn't do it with novices - only with players with sufficient knowledge of both Bridge and the Laws.

 

I try to teach my newer players that TD calls are part of the game, and should be treated as such. And the proper response to "I could call the TD for that" is "Director, please!" One of four things should happen:

 

- There actually is a problem, and they learn something about how the game is supposed to be played. They learn it from, and can ask for more information later, someone with no irons in the fire, and who is least likely to raise hackles.

- There actually is a problem, but the opponent really doesn't want the penalty to be applied. TDs are usually pretty good about realizing "I want to waive the penalty" even when they don't know they have that option, and offering it to them.

- The opponent doesn't actually know the laws as well as they think they do, or they're remembering an old wives' tale that either never was true (if partner hesitates, you have to pass), is only true in rubber bridge (you can play on after a claim), or was true thirty years ago, but was removed or changed in the current Laws or Alert regulation (you do know that in the ACBL, negative doubles of interference to 1NT is no longer Alertable since 2002, right? Lots of people don't...) In this case, calling the TD stops said old wives' tales getting passed on, and potentially blowing up in the novices' faces later.

- The opponents are either playing intimidation tactics, or don't realize it is intimidating; making it clear that it's not going to play *right away* tends to shut it down.

 

Michael (who really needs to get some time out of his real life to read through the new Laws).

[blackshoe]

The change from "must" to "should" in Law 9B1 is at least partly my fault. Several years ago, I brought attention to "must" in the current laws, and pointed out that this meant a PP should be issued "more often than not". Grattan Endicott brought this formally to the attention of the WBFLC (it's in the minutes of one of their meetings) where the comment was made that this may not have been intended. The question was turned over to the Drafting Subcommittee, and the rest is history.

 

"Be nice to novices" is all very well, but a player telling a novice to pick up his misplayed card and continue, or making any other ruling at the table is still in violation of the laws.