[pran]

WBFLC has now published the Laws of Bridge 2017

Quote:
The WBF has set a deadline of September 30th, 2017 as the latest possible date for Zones and NBOs to commence using the new 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Regulating Authorities are free to select an earlier date.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-April-01, 04:56, said:

WBFLC has now published the Laws of Bridge 2017

Quote:
The WBF has set a deadline of September 30th, 2017 as the latest possible date for Zones and NBOs to commence using the new 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Regulating Authorities are free to select an earlier date.

I note that Law 46B1(b) still states:
(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he [declarer] is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.

I presume that this means that dummy may use a complete count of the hand to play the lowest card that it is known will win the trick, regardless of whether RR as declarer would have known this.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2017-April-03, 05:23, said:

I note that Law 46B1(b) still states:
(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he [declarer] is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.

They had to leave you something to do over the next ten years

[Zelandakh]

Def: The first change looks to me to be a fairly big one. No longer are conventions showing length in the bid suit such as Muiderberg natural but are now explicitly artificial. Perhaps they were before but most seemed to think these calls were protected through being natural as well as conventional. This presumably means that in jurisdictions that ban psyches of artificial calls, it will immediately be illegal to psyche such an opening, so I can open a third seat xx xxxxx xxx Kxx 2♥ as a weak 2 but not as Muideberg, which seems to be a little arbitrary, even for bridge regulations.

25: "Without pause for thought" is gone. I am guessing it will not be missed.

27: The IB law is interesting and perhaps already unclear. Is "specifies the same denomination" meant to cover transfers, meaning that 2♦ specifies hearts? That is the immediate impression but I am not certain if it is correct. So we have the auction: 1NT - (2♦) - 2♦, meant as a transfer. Is the lowest sufficient bid now 2♥? Similarly, how about 1♣ - (1♥) - 1♥, which would have shown 5+ spades after a pass. The only call in the methods that shows spades after the overcall is a double. This is not the lowest sufficient bid (it is a call but not a bid) nor is it a subset to be comparable. It might be considered to have a comparable meaning, or not, according to the interpretation of the TD.

40: This seems like the confirmation of the thought coming from the definitions. Given the amount of conventions used in modern bidding systems, this is about as close as we have ever been to the possibility of psyches being banned. The issue of IPUs creating an illegal system has unfortunately not been addressed.

46: as Paul has already pointed out, "the lowest card that is is known will win" is somewhat controversial.

68: is probably going to be popular in clubs but in reality just gives weak defenders an addiitonal losing option in most cases. One would hope that the usual bridge club peer pressure does not make it de rigeur to take this option.

72: It may have moved from 23 but the SB is still in business!

Overall I have to admit that I (naively) expected a little more.

[blackshoe]

Do not forget that even the Drafting Subcommittee will have had to contend with resistance to change.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-April-03, 07:33, said:

68: is probably going to be popular in clubs but in reality just gives weak defenders an addiitonal losing option in most cases. One would hope that the usual bridge club peer pressure does not make it de rigeur to take this option.

SB, noting that all four players must agree to play on after a claim, already has his lines ready as dummy, whenever partnering RR. Knowing that RR will always be ruled against in any faulty claim, he will say. "I think, and I give my agreeement, that you should all play on. Surely you will do at least as well with RR at the helm, opponents, so there is no need for the TD is there?"

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-April-03, 07:33, said:

40: This seems like the confirmation of the thought coming from the definitions. Given the amount of conventions used in modern bidding systems, this is about as close as we have ever been to the possibility of psyches being banned. The issue of IPUs creating an illegal system has unfortunately not been addressed.

I don't see any significant change here. The RA is allowed to ban the psyching of artificial calls, but they are still only allowed to designate partnership understandings as "special" if they may not be readily be understood. So, the psyching of a 1NT overcall, the psyching of a strength-showing redouble, the psyching of a natural 2H in the auction 1S-(X)-2H, the psyching of a natural opening third in hand on a low doubleton in a major, and the psyching of a weak 2H with six spades, remain de rigeur, despite what some RAs, and some clubs, attempt to impose. None meets the definition of "artificial" call.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-April-03, 08:25, said:

I don't see any significant change here. The RA is allowed to ban the psyching of artificial calls, but they are still only allowed to designate partnership understandings as "special" if they may not be readily be understood. So, the psyching of a 1NT overcall, the psyching of a strength-showing redouble, the psyching of a natural 2H in the auction 1S-(X)-2H, the psyching of a natural opening third in hand on a low doubleton in a major, and the psyching of a weak 2H with six spades, remain de rigeur, despite what some RAs, and some clubs, attempt to impose. None meets the definition of "artificial" call.

Except that after doing it more than once the RA can rule that you have an IPU and ban your system completely. That you can name these situations so easily suggests that you and your partner may well already be playing an illegal system!

[weejonnie]

Is the law meant to cover transfers - YES! If you call 2♦ showing hearts then the denomination is hearts.

In the example given 1NT - (2♦) - 2♦, the lowest call in the same denomination is 2♥ (unless 2♥ shows something else)

(2017) 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same  denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without  further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following

(2007) 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

This is probably a minor change since in the 2007 laws the IB can be replaced by a call that is the same as or more precise in meaning - now it extends the alternatives to include a 'comparable' call which offers more possibilities.

(The reason for that is the definition of a 'comparable call' includes calls that are similar in meaning. IMHO this is a bit vague - how 'similar' can calls be?)

The major change in rulebook decisions, are laws 30-32 (calls after a call out of rotation). These have the effect of allowing the offending side a better chance of not being forced to 'guess' the final contract. Since most COOTS are accidental (or law 23/72C applies) this seems fairer.

Some minor changes - dummy (now defined as ending when a play ceases) can now try and prevent an irregularity by ANY person - and can now tell declarer that he has to follow suit (previously he couldn't - although this rule was regularly abused (it happened in a teams match on Sunday!)). You can't now show dummy your hand.

No Doubt SB will be reading law 68D (play suspended after a claim) and realise that this means that dummy is still dummy under laws 69 and 70 as play has not 'ended'.

Another minor change is the right to look at your own card before your side leads or plays to the next trick. (66B) - previously the right expired when any card was led to the next trick.

Law 7 now allows opponents to touch dummy's cards by permission of the declarer.

Law 75 (Mistaken bid or mistaken explanation) - gives better guidance for TDs on how to handle this situation.

A major change is that if you give a misexplanation of your partner's bid then you don't have to correct it until the correction period. 20F4A.

The best change in the laws? There is now a 'Table of Contents!' - RAs should make sure that any translations resulting in the laws moving from one page to another are catered for.