International Bridge Laws Forum

Welcome, Register :: Log in

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ]

[ Print ]

[ Send ]

[ Watch ]

[ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

James Vickers Reply

Club rules ( 13:11:05 TueJun 17 2003 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Whisper Country: UK I have been given the task of reviewing the club rules. Ours is a bridge club affiliated to the county association and the EBU. As far as I understand the situation, the club, as the sponsoring organisation, can impose any playing rules it likes so long as these do not conflict with the laws of the game. So we are bound by the WBF laws (the blue book), but not the EBU regulations (the Orange Book). For instance we could decide that a Stayman 2C should not be alerted (Orange Book stuff), but not that a passed out hand should be redealt (L22A). We could declare that a bid is not made until the bidding card is placed on the table (contravenes OB 7.3.2, but no law), but not that declarer's deliberately played card can be retracted without penalty (would contravene L45). We could not ban psyches (L75B), but we need not impose a 60/30% score in the case of fielded psyches as the OB recommends (6.2.2). (We could, if we so wished, impose 60/0%, for instance.) Is my understanding so far correct? One of our existing rules states that "Any player or players that wilfully refuse to play a board will automatically score zero on the board. Their opponents will score 60% or their own average, whichever is the greater." Notwithstanding the fact that the TD could award 60/40% in such cases and add a disciplinary penalty of 40% of a top for the offenders, is this rule as it stands in contravention of L12B and L12C? James

bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply

Re: Club rules ( 13:21:59 TueJun 17 2003 ) Select Action Reply Quote post Report post Last posts Ignore user Global ignore Whisper Your perception of the legalities in your first few paragraphs seems completely accurate to me. A pair that refuses to play a board should consider themselves extremely fortunate to get 0% on a board. Most sponsoring organisations would disqualify them routinely. I cannot see how 60/0 can be against the Laws. --- David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com> Liverpool, England, UK http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ]

[ Print ]

[ Send ]

[ Watch ]

[ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

Register :: Log in The time is now 00:28:57 Wed Aug 27 2003

top

Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF

Legend :: Read Topic :: Unread Topic

Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status