Talk:Laws of Duplicate Bridge

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Contract bridgeWikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridgeTemplate:WikiProject Contract bridgeContract bridge articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Games (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Article needs renaming

With the new edition, the title is now Laws of Duplicate Bridge, I'll adjust the lead sentence, but as an anonymous user I can't rename the article. Someone do it, please? --70.48.228.84 (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking needs some clarification

"When a revoke is established, in general, one of subsequent tricks won by the offending side is transferred to the opponents. If the revoke card has won the trick, that trick is transferred too. (If the offending side did not win any subsequent tricks, no penalty is assessed"

This may give the impression that if the offending side won the trick where the revoke occurred, but did not win any subsequent trick then no penalty is awarded. This is not true. I think the following is clearer:

When a revoke is established, in general, zero, one, or two tricks won by the offending side are transferred to the opponents. If the revoke card won the trick, that trick is transferred. If any number of subsequent tricks are won, then another single trick is transferred (even if the revoke trick didn't win). If neither the revoke card won the trick, nor any other trick was subsequently won, then no penalty is assessed. This means that at most, there may be a penalty of two tricks.

The tournament director can order that additional tricks be transferred if the revoke has caused more damage to the opponents than was redressed by those penalties.

--Bothyhead (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships 1970, two significant rules

I can find the source, but I don't have it right here and now. But during the World Championships in 1970, the following rules were imposed, I'd like to point out

Both players in a couple must use the same system and conventions (One cannot bid according to Acol and the other according to Std American.)
Pass as opening bid was banned

I guess those rules are still valid. Boeing720 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, though I don't have a source to hand. A more plausible example: the pair can't agree that the weaker player will use transfers over 1NT while the stronger player won't, so that the stronger player gets to play most of the contracts.
In the terminology of the Laws, "pass" is not a bid, it's a call. Anyway, it's always legal to pass, and always has been. Sometimes, a hand is "passed out", with all four players passing.

Maproom (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New section "History of the Laws of Contract Bridge"

I've created a new section, giving details and dates of some more significant rules changes. By "significant", I mean, concerning the way the game works when nothing goes wrong, rather than the handling of irregularities.

I have some reservations about what I've done, and would appreciate the views of other editors.

The content I've added (apart from the IMPs subsection) applies to contract bridge, whether rubber, Chicago, or duplicate. I'd have preferred to add it to an article on "Laws on Contract Bridge", but there isn't one.
The article now has a "History" section at the beginning, and a "History of the Laws of Contract Bridge" section near the end. This is not ideal. Maybe those sections should be merged.

Maproom (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions but this is addressed at History of contract bridge scoring. Suggest for some sort of merging/consolidation. A simple link with an introductory link would be sufficient. Newwhist (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]