The Laws of Auction

Some of the Changes Proposed in the Present Code by the A. W. L. Committee

R. F. FOSTER

WHILE it is probable that the proposed revision of the laws of Auction Bridge (as it is now to be officially called) will not be adopted by the American Whist League, nor be ready for distribution in printed form until after the annual Congress in July, enough seems to have been done by the committee to indicate the nature of the more important departures from the present code.

The meeting held at The Whist Club of New York last October brought together representative players from New York, Philadelphia, Hartford, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee. The Boston member, H. H. Ward, was unfortunately absent. The meeting did not formulate anything, but confined itself to suggestions, which have since been submitted to a large number of clubs and players for their opinion.

The first and most important suggestion seems to have been to remedy the glaring defect in the present code which was pointed out in Vanity Fair for April, 1924. This is to make each law complete in itself, cutting out all the backward and forward references and the interminable footnotes, which are such a blot on the present code.

THE suggestion, (which has cropped up at every opportunity to make a change in the laws), of making the suits equal in scoring value, retaining their present rank only for bidding purposes, seems to have been again turned down. Some of the best players in the country have spoken favourably of the change, as it would greatly simplify the scoring, and avoid many errors in subtraction and addition, but of course it would play havoc with the publishers, and send most of their books on the game to the discard. Trade questions must be considered.

Among the minor suggestions is that to change the rank of the suits in cutting, so as to agree with their rank in the bidding.. At present, if two players cut equal cards, such as the eights of spades and hearts, the spade has the preference, although .the spades are of higher rank in the bidding. The proposed change is to agree with the rule that in cutting "low wins". By ranking the suits for cutting as in play, low will win in a double sense.

Another recommendation is to retain the present definition of a rubber, which is .the exclusive property of The Whist Club and not to be found in any dictionary. The Whist Club may invent all the new words it pleases, but it will find it a difficult matter to change the meaning of words that have stood in the English language for more than three hundred years, in all sorts of games, and for more than two hundred in card games.

The popular understanding of the word "rubber" as applied to games, coincides with the dictionary definition, which is: "The odd or deciding game in a series, when there is a tie." The Whist Club defines a rubber as winning more points than your opponents. This may be because they wish to avoid any reference in the laws to the custom of making outside bets on the result, which is th.e only thing such a definition can possibly affect. As probably not one rubber in a hundred thousand played in this country has any outside bets on it, The Whist Club might be referred to Matthew XXIII, 24.

It is more than probable that the present penalty for looking at cards during the deal will either be abolished or made sufficient to be a preventative. In practice it has been found that the penalty is either entirely ignored, or that the players never even knew that there was such a thing. Those who do know it put down the 25 points in the honor column with a smile, as if it were a joke of some kind, about on a line with fining a dangerous speeder two dollars.

THE laws about insufficient bids have always been Greek to the average player, and more questions on this subject have probably been submitted for decision than on all others combined. There seem to be three suggestions for changing this law.

The first is that there should not be a penalty if the player corrects himself before another calls attention to the error, or if the next player declares before it is corrected.

Another is that if attention is called to the insufficient bid, the player in error shall have the choice to correct it or to withdraw it. Whichever he does, his partner cannot make any kind of declaration during that deal.

Another is that if the insufficient bid is withdrawn, the only penalty shall be to prevent the partner from leading that suit, the first time he finds himself with the lead.

The opinion of the committee seems to agree with the suggestion made in Vanity Fair, that the penalty for an insufficient bid should be the same as for a bid out of turn. This again naturally leads to making the penalty for a double or redouble out of turn the same as that for a bid out of turn. By grouping all these together, we get a muth simpler and more easily understood law. The present law, No. 37, has a great deal of unnecessary verbiage, which might easily be eliminated.

Passing out of turn has always given players a great deal of trouble. The gist of the present law is that if a player passes out of turn and the player to his left declares before attention is called to the error, the pass stands as regular. But if either opponent calls attention to the error, the player whose right turn it was to say something docs so, but the player who passed out of turn cannot say anything unless the declaration he passed is overcalled or doubled. Suppose no declaration had been made when he said, "I pass"?

IT is now proposed to add to this law that if no previous bid has been made the player who says, "I pass" out of turn must wait until some bid is made. All this proposed circumlocution about, "If the opponent call attention to the error the pass is void, and the player whose turn it was when the error was made, resumes the declaration, but the offending player may not thereafter bid, double, or redouble unless (or until) the previous bid, or, if no previous bid has been made, the new bid has been overbid or doubled."

This is hard reading. It is necessary to say all that in order, to make clear the point that, "If a player passes out of turn and attention is not called to it before the next player declares, the pass stands. But if attention is called to it, the player in error cannot declare until some one else bids or doubles." Why doesn't that cover it?

The committee evidently took the hint from Vanity Fair with regard to law 42, which specifies three "attempts" to change the declaration. The committee suggests to change this law, so that one shall know what it really means, by stating what constitutes a legal change, an illegal change, the penalty for an illegal change, and the penalty for changing a bid that is sufficient.

The last suggestion is probably based on the case mentioned in Vanity Fair, in which a player bid two hearts, arid immediately changed it to three hearts. Neither the card committee of the club at which this occurred nor the committee on the laws could decide what should be done in such a case.

The committee seems to have given up all hope of explaining how one is to know whether or not dummy has "intentionally" looked at the hand of an opponent. We know when he walks round the table and takes a look at his partner's hand, but it would take an umpire to check up his chances to see an opponent's hand, which is usually so held as to better conceal it from the declarer.

Continued on page 88

Continued, from page 65

Perhaps the most interesting and important suggestion for the average player will be the changes in laws 56, 57 and 58, with regard to the revoke. Vanity Fair has called attention to the absurdity of the present law on several occasions. I have personally been fighting against this law for more than eight years. After turning down my suggestions during the revision of the laws in September 1920, the committee now seems ready to agree with me in the two most important points.

These were that the revoke penalty should be a fixed penalty, and not one that might vary from nothing to a thousand points. And, that the penalty should not be retroactive. That is, no one should take away from a player, as revoke penalty, tricks he had won before he revoked. This will give great satisfaction to many innocent but absent-minded players who are now over severely penalized.

ANSWER TO LAST PROBLEM

There are no trumps and Z leads. Y and Z want all five tricks. This is how they get them:

Z leads the spade five. If B wins and returns the spade six Z wins it. A's best discard is probably the small club. Y sheds the ten of diamonds. Z now leads the king of diamonds, and the suit that A discards, Y keeps.

If B refuses to win the first trick, leaving Y in the lead with the eight of spades, Y leads the heart, putting A in. B will discard a small diamond. Z discards the king of clubs. Now A must lead the jack or six of clubs, so that Y must play the ace. Now it is Z that keeps whichever suit B discards.