September 2019 - 36

Ruling the Game
rulings@acbl.org
MODERATOR: MATT SMITH
NATIONAL TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR

I was called to a table at
my club to deal with a situation where, after pulling
out cards from the board, a player
dropped the ♣Q face up on the table.
Nobody had bid yet, but it seemed to
me that Law 24 applied, so I barred
his partner for one round and ruled
the ♣Q was a major penalty card
when the opponents arrived in 3NT.
The ruling felt overly harsh to me.
Did I get it right?

Your ruling would have
been correct under the previous version of the laws where
Law 24 [Card Exposed or Led Prior to
Play Period] was applied in such a case
once the "auction period" had begun.
The auction period was (and still is)
defined as beginning for a side when
either partner withdraws his cards
from the board. However, the new Law
24 [Card Exposed or Led During the
Auction] now refers to the "auction."
According to the Definitions section
at the start of the Laws, the auction
begins when the first call is made. On
the facts you state, the auction had not
begun, so I'm afraid your ruling was
incorrect.
The correct law to apply before the
auction begins is 16D [Extraneous
Information from Other Sources].
That law does not prescribe any set
penalties, but instead gives the director various options to deal with the
situation. Among other things, those

36 Bridge Bulletin September 2019

options include allowing play to be
completed and awarding an adjusted
score if the information from the exposed card turned out to interfere with
normal play, or even to decide that the
information is too significant to allow
normal play to continue and award an
adjusted score immediately.

With eight clubs, my partner opened the bidding with
4♣. I knew I could make
10 tricks in notrump; however, if I
bid 4NT, my partner would respond
showing key cards. Is it legal for me
to purposely make the insufficient
bid of 3NT? If prompted by an opponent, I would make my bid sufficient, but my partner would know
that I wanted to play in notrump. Or
because the meaning of 4NT is not
the same as 3NT, my partner would
be barred from the bidding. This
appears to be unethical, but is it illegal?

This is an explicit infraction
of the Laws, specifically the
following two:
Law 72C [Awareness of Potential
Damage]: If the director determines
that an offender could have been aware
at the time of his irregularity that it
could well damage the non-offending
side, he shall require the auction and
play to continue (if not completed).
At the conclusion of play, the director

awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an
advantage through the irregularity.
Law 72B1 [Infraction of Law]: A
player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed
rectification he is willing to accept.
While 72C is a law not often enforced, the elements necessary for its
application are present in your case.
You know there is no way you would
be able to get to 4NT under normal
circumstances, and only committing
the irregularity of an insufficient bid
lets you get there. You "could have been
aware" that doing so could damage the
other side, so you may not profit from
such an act. Note the importance of
the phrase "could have been aware at
the time of his irregularity." Law 72C is
not intended to be applied when a pair
gets a good result from a lucky guess
made by a player knowing their partner
is barred. It is only applied when they
could see a possible advantage to that
"guess" in advance of their original irregularity.
Further, if the director is sure a
player has intentionally violated the
law (as you are suggesting by someone
trying to "game the system" by bidding
3NT), then Law 72B1 is directly on
point. Note that Law 72B1 uses the
word "must." Violating that type of law
is a very serious matter that typically
should result in an automatic penalty.
◾

September 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2019