BRIDGE NOTES.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20732, 17 December 1932, Page 5

BRIDGE NOTES.

THE NEW LAWS. (FI'EU.ILLy WBITTEH JUS THK iRKSS.) [By William Shackle] Last week's article mainly consisted of explanations of the changes in the scoring methods; to-day's will be confined to penalties. The various penalties have been considerably altered and arc now more nearly related to the actual crime than formerly. In fact, on occasions penalties were sometimes enforced and rightly so according to the rules, when no benefit could have possibly been gained by the side which was penalised for the infringement. First, take the case of a revoke which is made by declarer after he had actually won sufficient tricks for contract or even game. Often such a revoke is made on tha 11th or 12th trick when nothing could possibly be gained. The full penalty had to be enforced, loss of 100 points, plus no score for tricks actually obtained. The new law is decidedly more carefully worded and also much more just. Two tricks aro to be transferred for the first revoke and one trick for each subsequent revoke, subject, however, to this most important clause "that no transfer shall include any trick won before the first revoke occurred or any trick transferred from the other side by this law." To my mind this is the most important change in the lfcws as it abolishes a penalty when noj possible injury has been done. Perhaps the following explanation will help. No actual point penalty is now given to an opponent while one 13 entitled to score, below the line, all tricks obtained prior to a revoke. If orio revokes and does not inak« any tricks by so doing no penalty is enforceable and if one only makes one extra trick by the Tevoke, then only one trick is transferred to the opponents. "Where two tricks have been taken from an opponent for an earlier revoke, these two tricks rank as tricks obtained by play, and cannot be retransf erred by any subsequent revoke of one's own side. Another decided improvement tend one which makes the punishment fit the crime, is the new penalty for leading from the wrong hand. "Either opponent may require him to lead from the correct hand and in such a case ho must, if he can, lead a card of the same suit." This seemingly innocent rule will, iu practice, bo found very costly for the player who frequently leads from the wrong hand, for instead of possibly assisting him it will rob him of a good finesse, thus losing perhaps several tricks. If ho fails to lead the same suit, he has committed a revoke, for which he must be penalised. This rule reads "failure to lead or play as duly required bv or under these laws when able to obey such requirement" is a revoke. It is extremelv likely that quite a large number of players will be found to be penalised far more often under this law than arc at present for failure to follow suit. Next week a further article noting and explaining the new laws will be 'riven <n this eolumn this being the second of a series on the new international code of laws for both auction and contract bridge.