The Armidale Bridge Club Committee met yesterday and several issues relating to the laws of the game were aired. As Chief Director, I have been asked to clarify the issues discussed. Please take the time to read this message carefully, because it should contribute to your partner's and your opponents’ enjoyment of the game.
Let me start with the issue of claims and concessions. Under Law 68, either declarer or defenders may state that they will make all or a specified number of the remaining tricks or claim that the play should be curtailed or show their cards. Similarly, players may concede all or a defined number of tricks. However, if the partner of a defender making a claim or concession disagrees, no concession occurs. The director should be called and play will continue.
Under Law 68C, a claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. Moreover, Law 68D makes it clear that play ceases when a claim is made and a line of play is described. No player can request that the deal be played out. When the opposing side agrees to the claim or concession, the deal is scored accordingly. If any player (including dummy) disagrees with the claim or concession, the director must be called to adjudicate the situation. If any doubt about the merits of a claim can be established, the issue shall be resolved against the claimer. So, those who claim or concede should be sure of their analysis. No ifs and buts! The law is very clear on these matters.
By the way, Law 74B (4) states that as a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. This Law strongly implies that players should claim or concede immediately when they know the inevitable outcome of the rest of the play. Timely claims and concessions have the great merit of speeding up play and the committee encourages players to consider making them where possible.
Law 74 more generally raises matters of conduct and etiquette designed to make the game pleasant for all participants. It observes, in a section on Proper Attitude, that
Section B, on Etiquette, states that as a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
Finally, Law 73 deals with authorised and unauthorised communication. It notes that communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.
However, variation in the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. And deception is legitimate either through a call or play so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience.
If there is any uncertainty about these matters, please call the director for guidance and/ or assessment. Remember that the director is there to help adjudicate queries or disputes. Please don’t take matters into your hands.
If you are asked about the meaning of one of your partner’s bids by the opposition during the auction, and you do not know the meaning because perhaps you are partnering someone for the first time, all you have to say is that you have no partnership understanding on the matter. Your partner should not attempt to explain to the opponents what he thought his bid meant! Such information would be unauthorised for partner. If you give an explanation that is incorrect, your partner cannot correct you during the auction (or play if you end up defending declarer’s contract). Under LAW 20 F 5(b) The player (whose bid has been misdescribed by partner) must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play or (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. The Director will then assess whether any penalties for the misinformation are warranted.
However, some players are reluctant to approach a director during a game or even afterwards, and yesterday the Armidale Bridge Club Committee established the position of Club Recorder. For a trial period of several months, Jim Stroud has volunteered to act as Club Recorder. If you have any queries or complaints about actions or decisions of players and even directors, please direct them in confidence to Jim, either by email or letter. He will take advice on the Laws of the game and their interpretation from one of the club’s qualified directors and advise you accordingly on the issues you raise. Rest assured that any matters brought to his attention will remain confidential between you and Jim. Not even the Committee will know the details.
In short, we all enjoy bridge, and it is up to us all to ensure that others are not deterred from playing at the club. This is helped by being aware of the Laws of the game and how to abide by them. Directors play a crucial role in this and you should call on their abilities if you have any doubts.
Tony Sorensen, Chief Director, Armidale Bridge Club
10 November 2010