Laws 72–93 · Everyday Language edition
Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The main aim is to score higher than other contestants, while following the lawful procedures and ethical standards these Laws set out.
1. A player must not break a law on purpose, even if willing to accept the rectification that follows.
2. Generally, there’s no obligation to point out an infraction by your own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation, and Laws 62A and 79A2).
3. A player may not try to hide an infraction — for example, by revoking a second time, hiding a card involved in a revoke, or mixing the cards too soon.
If the Director decides the offender could have realized, at the time of the irregularity, that it might well damage the non-offending side, the auction and play must continue (if not already finished). At the end of play, the Director awards an adjusted score if the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity.
1. During the auction and play, partners are required to communicate only through calls and plays, except where these Laws specifically allow otherwise.
2. Calls and plays are required to be made without emphasis, mannerism, or inflection, and without deliberate haste or hesitation (but see Law 73D3).
Players must not communicate, or try to communicate, by any means other than those Law 73A describes.
1. If a player has incidental unauthorized information from partner — from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, inflection, haste, or hesitation, or an unexpected Alert or missed one — they must carefully avoid taking advantage of it [see Law 16B1(a)].
2. A player who breaks C1 may be penalised; if the opponents were damaged, see also Law 16B3.
1. Players should ideally keep a steady tempo and consistent manner — and should be especially careful when a variation might help their own side. Otherwise, unintentionally varying the tempo or manner of a call or play isn’t an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only for the opponents, who act on them at their own risk.
2. A player may not try to mislead an opponent through a question, remark, or gesture; through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (say, hesitating before playing a singleton); through the manner of making a call or play; or through any deliberate departure from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).
3. Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses — for example, on the first round of the auction, after a skip- bid warning, or on the first trick.
1. A player may legitimately try to deceive an opponent through a call or play — as long as the deception isn’t emphasized by mannerism, unusual haste or hesitancy, and isn’t backed by a concealed partnership understanding or shared experience.
2. If the Director decides an innocent player drew a false inference from an opponent’s question, remark, manner, or tempo — where that opponent had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and could have realized at the time it might work in their favour — the Director is required to award an adjusted score.
1. A player should stay courteous at all times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or unnecessary action that might annoy or embarrass another player, or spoil their enjoyment of the game.
3. Every player should follow the same, correct procedure when calling and playing.
As a courtesy, a player should avoid:
1. not paying enough attention to the game;
2. making unnecessary comments during the auction and play;
3. detaching a card before their turn to play;
4. drawing out play needlessly (e.g. continuing to play out tricks that are surely already declarer’s) just to unsettle an opponent;
5. calling or speaking to the Director in a way that’s discourteous to them or to other contestants.
These count as improper procedure:
1. using different words for the same call;
2. showing approval or disapproval of a call or play;
3. signalling that you expect or intend to win or lose a trick that isn’t finished yet;
4. commenting or acting during the auction or play in a way that draws attention to something significant, or to how many tricks are still needed;
5. staring intently at another player during the auction or play, or at their hand, to try to see their cards or where they draw a card from (though it’s fine to act on information you saw by accident);
6. showing an obvious lack of interest in a deal (e.g. folding up your cards);
7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play to unsettle an opponent;
8. leaving the table unnecessarily before the round is called.
After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents, the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as follows:
Whether or not an explanation correctly states the partnership agreement, a player who hears partner’s explanation and realizes their own call was misinterpreted now has unauthorized information (see Law 16A). They must carefully avoid taking any advantage from it (see Law 73C) — otherwise the Director is required to award an adjusted score.
1. If the explanation given doesn’t match the actual partnership agreement, that explanation is an infraction. If it damages the non-offending side, the Director is required to award an adjusted score.
2. If a player realizes their own explanation was wrong, the Director must be called before the opening lead is faced (or during play, if discovered later), and a corrected explanation given. The player may also call the Director before the auction ends, though there’s no obligation to.
3. The player’s partner must do nothing to fix the mistaken explanation while the auction continues. If they end up defending, they must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If they end up as declarer or dummy, they must call the Director and give the correction after the final pass.
If the explanation correctly described the partnership agreement, and the mistake was in the call itself, there’s no infraction. The explanation is not to be corrected (and the Director not to be notified) right away, and there’s no obligation to do so later either. Regardless of any damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].
1. Players are expected to accurately disclose their partnership agreements (see Law 20F1); failing to do so is Misinformation.
2. A genuine partnership agreement requires both players to share the same understanding — describing an ‘agreement’ where that shared understanding doesn’t actually exist is an infraction. If the Director decides the misleading explanation wasn’t based on a real partnership agreement, Law 21B applies.
3. Where there’s an infraction (under B1 or D2) and there’s enough evidence of the call’s agreed meaning, the Director awards an adjusted score based on the likely outcome had the opponents gotten the correct explanation in time. If the Director decides the call has no agreed meaning, the adjusted score is based on the likely outcome had the opponents been told that.
1. Spectators in the playing area are subject to the Director’s control, under the tournament’s regulations.
2. Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers who allow electronic transmission of play as it happens may set regulations for how it’s viewed and what viewer conduct is acceptable. (A viewer must not communicate with a player during a session that player is playing in.)
1. A spectator may not look at more than one player’s hand, unless regulations allow it.
2. A spectator must not show any reaction to the bidding or play while a deal is in progress.
3. During a round, a spectator must avoid any mannerisms or remarks, and must not talk with a player.
4. A spectator must not disturb a player.
5. A spectator at the table must not draw attention to any aspect of the game.
1. A spectator may speak about fact or law within the playing area only if the Director asks them to.
2. Regulating Authorities and Tournament Organizers may specify how to handle irregularities caused by spectators.
Anyone in the playing area who isn’t a player or tournament official counts as a spectator, unless the Director says otherwise.
Scored by declarer’s side if the contract is fulfilled, per odd trick bid and made:
| Denomination | Undoubled / Doubled / Redoubled |
|---|---|
| Clubs or Diamonds | 20 / 40 / 80 |
| Hearts or Spades | 30 / 60 / 120 |
| No trump — first odd trick | 40 / 80 / 160 |
| No trump — each additional odd trick | 30 / 60 / 120 |
A trick score of 100 points or more on one board is GAME. Less than 100 points is a PARTSCORE.
Scored by declarer’s side. Slams (bid and made):
| Slam | Not Vulnerable / Vulnerable |
|---|---|
| Small Slam (12 tricks) | 500 / 750 |
| Grand Slam (all 13 tricks) | 1000 / 1500 |
Overtricks (each trick made beyond the contract):
| Not Vulnerable / Vulnerable | |
|---|---|
| Undoubled | Trick value / Trick value |
| Doubled | 100 / 200 |
| Redoubled | 200 / 400 |
Other premiums: making game while vulnerable, 500; making game not vulnerable, 300; making any partscore, 50; making any doubled-but-not-redoubled contract, an extra 50; making any redoubled contract, an extra 100.
Scored by declarer’s opponents if the contract isn’t fulfilled — tricks by which declarer falls short:
| Not Vulnerable / Vulnerable | |
|---|---|
| First undertrick, undoubled | 50 / 100 |
| First undertrick, doubled | 100 / 200 |
| First undertrick, redoubled | 200 / 400 |
| Each further undertrick, undoubled | 50 / 100 |
| Each further undertrick, doubled | 200 / 300 |
| Each further undertrick, redoubled | 400 / 600 |
| Extra bonus, 4th+ undertrick, undoubled | 0 / 0 |
| Extra bonus, 4th+ undertrick, doubled | 100 / 0 |
| Extra bonus, 4th+ undertrick, redoubled | 200 / 0 |
If all four players pass (see Law 22), each side records a zero score.
In matchpoint scoring, each contestant earns two scoring units (matchpoints or half-matchpoints) for every other comparable score that’s worse than theirs, one unit for every score equal to theirs, and zero for every score better than theirs.
In IMP scoring, the total-point difference between the two compared scores on each board converts to IMPs on this scale:
| Point difference | IMPs |
|---|---|
| 0–10 | 0 |
| 20–40 | 1 |
| 50–80 | 2 |
| 90–120 | 3 |
| 130–160 | 4 |
| 170–210 | 5 |
| 220–260 | 6 |
| 270–310 | 7 |
| 320–360 | 8 |
| 370–420 | 9 |
| 430–490 | 10 |
| 500–590 | 11 |
| 600–740 | 12 |
| 750–890 | 13 |
| 900–1090 | 14 |
| 1100–1290 | 15 |
| 1300–1490 | 16 |
| 1500–1740 | 17 |
| 1750–1990 | 18 |
| 2000–2240 | 19 |
| 2250–2490 | 20 |
| 2500–2990 | 21 |
| 3000–3490 | 22 |
| 3500–3990 | 23 |
| 4000+ | 24 |
In total point scoring, each contestant’s score is the net total points across all boards played.
With the Regulating Authority’s approval, other scoring methods (e.g. converting to Victory Points) may be used. The Tournament Organizer should publish Conditions of Contest ahead of the event, covering entry conditions, scoring methods, how winners and ties are determined, and similar details. These Conditions must not conflict with any law or regulation, are required to include anything the Regulating Authority specifies, and should be available to contestants.
1. The number of tricks won is required to be agreed before all four hands have been returned to the board.
2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick their side didn’t win, or the concession of a trick the opponents couldn’t have lost.
If there’s a disagreement, the Director must be called, then:
1. The Director decides whether there was a claim or concession, and if so, applies Law 69B or Law 71.
2. If B1 doesn’t apply, the Director rules on what score should be recorded.
3. If the Director isn’t called before the round ends, the score can only be changed for both sides if the Director becomes clearly convinced of what actually happened at the table. Otherwise, the recorded score stands — or one side’s score may be reduced without increasing the other’s.
1. An error in recording or calculating the agreed score, whether made by a player or an official, may be corrected until the period(s) the Tournament Organizer sets expires. Unless the Tournament Organizer sets a later time, this Correction Period ends 30 minutes after the official score becomes available for inspection.
2. With the Tournament Organizer’s approval, a scoring error may still be corrected after the Correction Period ends, if the Director is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong.
1. Under these Laws, the Regulating Authority is:
(a) the World Bridge Federation, for its own world tournaments and events;
(b) the relevant Zonal Authority, for tournaments and events held under its auspices;
(c) the National Bridge Organization, for any other tournament held under its auspices.
2. The Regulating Authority has the responsibilities and powers these Laws specify.
3. The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (keeping ultimate responsibility for how they’re used) or assign them outright (in which case it has no further responsibility for them).
1. The Regulating Authority may recognize an entity, the ‘Tournament Organizer’, responsible for arranging and preparing a tournament, subject to the Regulating Authority’s requirements and these Laws. The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties can be delegated, but responsibility for them stays with the Organizer. The Regulating Authority and Tournament Organizer may be the same body.
2. The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
(a) appointing the Director — if none is appointed, the players should designate someone to act as Director;
(b) making advance arrangements for the tournament: venue, equipment, and other logistics;
(c) setting the date and time of each session;
(d) setting the conditions of entry;
(e) setting the conditions for bidding and play under these Laws, plus any special conditions (e.g. play with screens, where rectification for actions not transmitted across the screen can vary);
(f) announcing regulations that supplement, but don’t conflict with, these Laws;
(g) (i) arranging for any assistants the Director needs, and (ii) appointing other staff and setting their duties and responsibilities;
(h) arranging for entries to be accepted and listed;
(i) setting suitable playing conditions and announcing them to contestants;
(j) arranging for scores to be collected, results tabulated, and an official record kept;
(k) making suitable arrangements for appeals under Law 93;
(l) any other powers and duties these Laws give it.
The Director is the Tournament Organizer’s official representative.
1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical running of the tournament, and has the power to fix any gaps the Tournament Organizer left.
2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and any supplementary regulations announced under authority these Laws grant.
Rectifying irregularities and redressing damage is the Director’s job, not the players’. This normally also includes the power to:
1. maintain discipline and keep the game running in an orderly way;
2. administer and interpret these Laws, and advise players of their rights and responsibilities under them;
3. rectify an error or irregularity, however it comes to light, within the periods Laws 79C and 92B set;
4. assess rectification where it applies, and use the powers in Laws 90 and 91;
5. waive a rectification for good reason, at their discretion, if the non-offending side asks;
6. settle disputes;
7. refer a matter to an appropriate committee;
8. report results for the official record if the Tournament Organizer requires it, and handle anything else the Tournament Organizer delegates.
The Director may delegate duties to assistants, but stays responsible for them being done correctly.
It’s the Director’s job to fix procedural errors and keep the game moving in a way that doesn’t conflict with these Laws.
To fix a procedural error, the Director may:
1. award an adjusted score, where these Laws allow it;
2. require, postpone, or cancel play of a board;
3. use any other power these Laws give them.
If the Director later finds a ruling was wrong, and no rectification would let the board be scored normally, an adjusted score is required to be awarded — treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.
If the Director thinks a decision on a point of fact, or a use of discretionary power, might well deserve a second look, a contestant is required to be told they can appeal — or the matter may instead be referred to an appropriate committee.
When a Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, they rule as follows:
If no rectification is set out in law, and there’s no need to use discretionary powers, the Director tells the players to continue the auction or play.
If a Law clearly covers the case and sets out the rectification for the irregularity, the Director determines and applies it.
If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification, the Director explains the options and makes sure a choice is made and carried out.
The Director resolves any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side, aiming to restore equity. If the Director judges it likely that an irregularity damaged the non-offending side, and these Laws provide no rectification for it, the score is adjusted (see Law 12).
When a Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation where the facts are disputed, they proceed as follows:
1. The Director is required to base their finding of facts on the balance of probabilities — that is, on the weight of whatever evidence can be gathered.
2. Once satisfied the facts are established, the Director applies Law 84.
If the Director can’t establish the facts satisfactorily, they make whatever ruling lets play continue.
The Director is not to use Law 6’s authority to order a board redealt if a contestant could already know the match’s final result without that board. Instead, the Director awards an adjusted score.
1. Single Result Obtained — In team play, if the Director awards an adjusted score and the result at the other table (between the same contestants) clearly favours one side, the Director is required to award an assigned adjusted score [see Law 12C1(c); for multiple adjusted scores, see B2].
2. Multiple Results Obtained — In team play, if two or more non-comparable results arise between the same contestants, or these Laws otherwise require more than one adjusted score:
(a) if no contestant was at fault, the Director is required to cancel the board(s) and award one or more artificial adjusted scores [see Law 12C2] — or, if there’s time, play one or more substitute boards (but see A above);
(b) if only one contestant was at fault, the Director is required to award the non-offending side, for each board, either an artificial average-plus score [see Law 12C2(b)] or an assigned adjusted score — whichever is more favourable. The offending side gets the complementary score;
(c) if both contestants were at fault, the Director is required to cancel the board(s) and award one or more artificial adjusted scores [see Law 12C2].
3. The Regulating Authority may set different rules for boards played at only one table between the same or multiple contestants — varying the score in B2 by regulation. Without a relevant regulation, the Director proceeds as above.
A board counts as fouled if the Director finds that a card (or more than one) was misplaced in it, or the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board — and as a result, contestants who should be comparing scores didn’t play the board in identical form.
When scoring a fouled board, the Director determines, as closely as possible, which scores came from the board in its correct form and which came from the changed form(s), then divides them into groups and rates each group separately, per the tournament’s regulations. (Without a relevant regulation, the Director chooses and announces the method.)
See Law 86B2.
See Law 12C2.
1. seek to obtain, by illicit means, information about the board currently in play or about boards set for later play;
2. use illicit information about the board currently in play or about boards set for later play;
3. convey, or try to convey, information to partner about the board currently in play, by prohibited means;
4. convey, or try to convey, information to other players about boards set for later play.
B. A player who breaks A is subject to the sanctions for reprehensible conduct set out in the relevant disciplinary code.
C. Statistical or probabilistic analysis may be used to establish or support a charge that a contestant used prohibited communication methods.
D. Any of the following may count as grounds for finding wrongdoing, regardless of the actual outcome on the boards involved or what partner subsequently did or didn’t do:
1. a statistically significant correlation between a player’s manner or behaviour and the cards they held;
2. a statistically significant correlation between a player’s unusual choice of action and the cards held by either their partner or an opponent;
3. possessing illicitly obtained information about unplayed boards or unpublished results.
A Regulating Authority may also weigh evidence from events outside its own jurisdiction, including disciplinary actions taken by another Regulating Authority.
Besides applying the rectifications these Laws set out, the Director may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or disrupts the game, inconveniences other contestants, breaks correct procedure, or requires an adjusted score.
These are examples of offences that can draw a procedural penalty (the list isn’t exhaustive):
1. a contestant arriving after the specified starting time;
2. a contestant playing unduly slowly;
3. discussing the bidding, play, or result of a board where another table might overhear;
4. comparing scores with another contestant without authorization;
5. touching or handling another player’s cards (see Law 7);
6. putting a card in the wrong pocket of the board;
7. procedural errors (like failing to count your cards, or playing the wrong board) that require an adjusted score for any contestant;
8. not promptly following tournament regulations or the Director’s instructions.
In maintaining order and discipline, the Director may assess disciplinary penalties in points, or suspend a player or contestant for the current session, or part of it. The Director’s decision here is final (see Law 93B3).
The Director may disqualify a player or contestant for good cause, subject to the Tournament Organizer’s approval.
A contestant, or their captain, may appeal any ruling the Director made at that table. If the appeal is judged to lack merit, it may draw a sanction set by regulation.
The right to request or appeal a Director’s ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score becomes available for inspection, unless the Tournament Organizer sets a different time.
Every request to review a ruling is required to go through the Director.
An appeal is not heard unless:
1. in a pairs event, both partners agree to make it (in an individual contest, the appellant doesn’t need partner’s agreement);
2. in a team event, the team captain agrees to make it.
If there’s no Appeals Committee (or no alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or one can’t operate without disrupting the tournament’s smooth running, the Director in charge is required to hear and rule on all appeals.
1. The Director in charge is required to hear and rule on any part of the appeal that’s purely about a point of Law or regulation. This ruling may itself be appealed to the committee.
2. The Director in charge is required to refer every other appeal for a decision.
3. In deciding appeals, the committee (or authorized alternative) may use all the powers these Laws give the Director — except it may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of Law or regulation, or on their use of Law 91 disciplinary powers (though it may recommend the Director change such a ruling).
1. Regulating Authorities may set up procedures for further appeals once the above steps are exhausted. A further appeal judged to lack merit may draw a sanction set by regulation.
2. The Director in charge, or the reviewing body, may refer a matter to the Regulating Authority for later consideration. The Regulating Authority has final authority to resolve any matter.
3. (a) Despite 1 and 2, if crucial to the tournament’s progress, the Regulating Authority may assign final responsibility for an appeal to a specified tournament body — which, along with the parties to the appeal, is then bound by that outcome.
(b) With proper notice to contestants, a Regulating Authority may authorize skipping or modifying any stage of the appeals process these Laws set out.