Help

ACBL Duplicate Laws
Chapter 7 - Laws 72-76: Proprieties

A. Observance of Laws

1. General Obligation on Contestants

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws.
(Old 1997 Law)
Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws.

2. Scoring of Tricks Won

(Old 1997 Law removed)
A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

3. Waiving of Penalties

(Old 1997 Law removed)
In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do so - see Law 81C8).

4. Non-offenders' Exercise of Legal Options

(Old 1997 Law removed)
When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous.

5. Offenders' Options

(Old 1997 Law removed)
Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction.

6. Responsibility for Enforcement of Laws

(Old 1997 Law removed)
The responsibility for penalizing irregularities and redressing damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the players themselves.
 

B. Infraction of Law

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.
2. T here is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).
3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

(Old 1997 Law)
1. Infraction of Law

Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.

2. Intentional

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay.

3. Inadvertent Infraction

There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation).

4. Concealing an Infraction

A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke, or mixing the cards prematurely.

See Duplicate Decisions
 

A. Appropriate Communication between Partners

1. How Effected

Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves.

2. Correct Manner for Calls and Plays

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But the Regulating Authority may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning or on the first trick.
(Old 1997 Law)
Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organizations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick).
 

B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners

1. Gratuitous Information

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.
(Old 1997 Law)
Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

2. Prearranged Communication

The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.
(Old 1997 Law removed)
A guilty partnership risks expulsion.
 

C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.
(Old 1997 Law)
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. Inadvertent Variations

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk.
(Old 1997 Law)
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

2.  Intentional Variations

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark or a 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.
(Old 1997 Law)
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.
 

E. Deception

A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).
(Old 1997 Law removed)
 It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner.
 

F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent,

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).
(Old 1997 Law)
1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information

if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16).

(Old 1997 Law)
2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception

if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

See Duplicate Decisions

See Director Tech File, More

A. Proper Attitude

1. Courtesy

A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

2. Etiquette of Word and Action

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

3. Conformity to Correct Procedure

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.
 

B. Etiquette

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

 

1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

2. making gratuitous comments during the auction and play.

3. detaching a card before it is his turn to play.

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

5. summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.
 

C. Violations of Procedure

The following are examples of violations of procedure:
(Old 1997 Law)
The following are considered violations of procedure:

1. using different designations for the same call.

2. indicating approval or disapproval of a call or play.

3. indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed.

4. commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success.

5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*).
(Old 1997 Law)
looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card ).

6. showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding one's cards).

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

8. leaving the table needlessly before the round is called.

* See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

See Duplicate Decisions

See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example. North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2, intending to sign off. North explains, however, in answer to West’s inquiry, that South’s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.
 

A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information

Whether or not North’s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2 bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is “unauthorized information” (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids 2NT, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit. South’s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.
(Old 1997 Law)
Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal.
 

B. Mistaken Explanation

The actual partnership agreement is that 2 is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of law, since East–West are entitled to an accurate description of the North–South agreement. When this infraction results in damage to East–West, the Director shall award an adjusted score. If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues. After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.
(Old 1997 Law)
A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress.
 

C. Mistaken Call

The partnership agreement is as explained — 2 is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South’s call. Here there is no infraction of law, since East–West did receive an accurate description of the North– South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North–South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.
(Old 1997 Law)
When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.
 

D. Correcting Errors in Explanation

(Old 1997 Law Removed)
1. Explainer Notices Own Error

If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C).

2. Error Noticed by Explainer's Partner

A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy; after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous.

See Duplicate Decisions

See Director Tech File
 

 Two examples may clarify responsibilities of the players (and the Director) after a misleading explanation has been given to the opponents. In both examples following, North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.

(Old 1997 Law Removed)
Example 1 - Mistaken Explanation
The actual partnership agreement is that 2 is a natural sign-off; the mistake was in North's explanation. This explanation is an infraction of law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

(Old 1997 Law Removed)
Example 2 - Mistaken Bid
The partnership agreement is as explained - 2 is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's bid. Here there is no infraction of law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands.
(Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

(Old 1997 Law Removed)
In both examples, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2 bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is ``unauthorized information'' (see Law 16A), so South must be careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, if North rebids 2NT, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.

A. Control

1. One Hand Only

Spectators in the playing area* are subject to the control of the Director under the regulations for the tournament.
(Old 1997 Law)
A spectator should not look at the hand of more than one player, except by permission.

2. Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers who grant facilities for electronic transmission of play as it occurs may establish by regulation the terms by which such transmissions are viewed and prescribe acceptable conduct for viewers. (A viewer must not communicate with a player in the course of a session in which the latter is playing.)
(Old 1997 Law shifted to subsection B. below)
2. Personal Reaction

A spectator must not display any reaction to the bidding or play while a deal is in progress.

3. Mannerisms or Remarks

During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player).

4. Consideration for Players

A spectator must not in any way disturb a player.
 

B. At the Table

1. A spectator may not look at the hand of more than one player unless allowed by regulation.
2. A spectator must not show any reaction to the bidding or play when a deal is in progress.
3. During a round a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind and must have no conversation with a player.
4. A spectator must not disturb a player.
5. A spectator at the table shall not draw attention to any aspect of the game.
A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

C. Participation
    (New 2008 Law)

1. A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* only when requested to do so by the Director.
2. Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers may specify how to deal with irregularities caused by spectators.

C. Status
    (New 2008 Law)

1. Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently.

* The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating.  It may be further defined by regulation.

See Duplicate Decisions