For a ruling at the table, start with Quick Ruling. The assistant will take you through the facts, relevant Law trail and ruling record.
Club trial build • Prepared for practical use at Olicana Bridge Club
Choose the closest description. Amber screens identify points where Director judgement, fact-finding or consultation is required.
Did a player fail to follow suit when able?
YesNoNot sureEstablish the suit led, the card played and whether that player actually held a card of the suit led at that moment. Do not expose quitted tricks merely because a revoke is alleged; inspect them only if the Law permits or the Director needs to verify the facts.
BackIf the player did not hold the suit led, there is no revoke and no revoke rectification.
FinishHas the offending side played to trick 13?
NoYesA revoke on trick 12 must be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board. Restore the card wrongly played and substitute a card of the suit led. If a defender withdraws a card, check the Law 62C consequences; cards withdrawn by the non-offending side may be replaced without further rectification, but information from withdrawn cards can have Law 16 implications.
Reconstruct tricks 12 and 13 under the corrected play. Do not apply the ordinary Law 64A automatic trick transfer to this corrected revoke.
Normally it becomes established when the offender or offender's partner leads or plays to the following trick, or when the offending side makes/agrees to a claim or concession in the circumstances specified by Law 63.
YesNoHelpCheck Law 63A carefully. A revoke that is not established is corrected under Law 62. Once established it normally may not be corrected, except for the special trick-12 provision.
The offender withdraws the card played in revoke and substitutes a legal card. Now determine what happens to every card withdrawn because of that correction.
Offender was a defenderOffender was declarer/dummyThe defender's withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card if it was exposed in the ordinary manner covered by Law 62C. Subsequent cards played by the non-offending side may be withdrawn and replaced; check information consequences from those withdrawn cards.
Substitute a legal card and allow subsequent cards to be withdrawn as Law 62C permits. There is no automatic Law 64 trick adjustment because the revoke was corrected before establishment.
There is no automatic Law 64A trick adjustment for a revoke by dummy. However, that does not end the ruling: apply Law 64C and determine whether the defenders were damaged. Restore equity if necessary.
Do not impose another automatic adjustment for the subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player once the first revoke was established. Apply the automatic adjustment applicable to the first revoke, then use Law 64C to check whether the later revoke caused additional damage.
Examples include both sides revoking on the same board, a revoke after an earlier revoke in circumstances excluded from automatic adjustment, or other cases specifically listed in Law 64B.
Yes / unsureNoDo not manufacture an automatic trick transfer. Identify the exact Law 64B exception and then apply Law 64C where necessary to restore equity. If the facts are complicated, record the play and consult another TD before assigning the score.
Because the revoking player won the revoke trick, Law 64A starts with one trick. Did the offending side win any trick after the revoke trick?
YesNoDid the offending side win any trick after the revoke trick?
YesNoTransfer two tricks to the non-offending side, subject to the mandatory equity check.
Equity checkTransfer one trick to the non-offending side, subject to the mandatory equity check.
Equity checkNo automatic trick is transferred under the ordinary Law 64A calculation, but you must still check whether the revoke caused damage requiring redress under Law 64C.
Equity checkCompare the result after the automatic adjustment with the likely result had the revoke not occurred. Would the non-offending side still be worse off?
No — automatic result is sufficientYes / possibly / uncertainReconstruct the likely normal play from the point of the revoke. Award an adjusted score sufficient to compensate the non-offending side. If more than one outcome has a meaningful probability, Law 12C1 permits a weighted score.
Analyse / record adjustmentDetermine what would likely have happened without the revoke. Do not add an extra “penalty” merely because the revoke occurred: the purpose of Law 64C is to remove remaining damage after the automatic provision, or to restore equity where no automatic adjustment applies.
Apply the provisional Law 64A trick transfer already identified. The Law 64C check has shown that no further adjustment is required.
Do not ask the offender simply to “make it sufficient”. Has LHO accepted the insufficient bid by calling?
YesNoNot sureUnder Law 27A an insufficient bid may be accepted. Establish exactly what happened after it.
BackThe insufficient bid is legalised and the auction proceeds, subject to the Law 27A conditions.
Was the bidding card selected accidentally, rather than being the call the player intended at the moment it was made?
Yes / possiblyNoConsider Law 25A before applying Law 27. This is not the same as a player changing their mind.
Can the offender replace it by the lowest sufficient bid specifying the same denomination(s) as the withdrawn call?
YesNo / unsureExplain the Law 27B1(a) option. Do not choose the call for the player.
Could a legal replacement have the same or similar meaning, or define a subset of the meanings attributable to the insufficient bid?
Likely / possibleNoCompare the meanings of the withdrawn and replacement calls, not merely the bidding cards. If accepted as comparable, flag the board for review after play under Law 27D.
If the player chooses another permitted replacement, apply the exact Law 27 consequences and any Law 26 lead restrictions. Do not use a generic “partner must pass” rule without checking the branch.
No further calls. Establish whose turn it was and exactly what call was made.
Start Law 28 checkWas the call made at RHO’s turn when RHO was required by Law to pass?
YesNoIf RHO was required by Law to pass, the call is considered to be in rotation.
Did the player whose turn it actually was make a call before the Director assessed rectification?
YesNoThe auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn. Law 26 does not apply; information consequences under Law 16C2 remain relevant.
Following the out-of-rotation call, did offender’s LHO elect to call?
YesNoOffender’s LHO has called. The right to rectification for the call out of rotation is forfeited and the auction continues, subject to other applicable Laws.
The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was. Choose the cancelled call.
PassBidDouble / redoubleAfter RHO makes the proper call, offender must pass when next it is offender’s turn. Keep Law 72C in mind if the irregularity could have created advantage.
Partner may make any legal call, but Law 16C2 applies. When offender reaches the proper turn, offender may make any legal call. If it is comparable, there is no further rectification; if not, partner must pass at partner’s next turn and Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.
Assess comparable callA pass out of rotation at offender’s LHO’s turn, when offender has previously called, is treated as a change of call.
If the repeated call is legal, there is no rectification.
Law 16C2 applies. When offender reaches the proper turn, offender may make any legal call; then apply the comparable-call test.
Assess offender’s callAn inadmissible double/redouble can never be accepted and Law 36 applies. If admissible and not accepted, whose turn was it?
InadmissibleRHO’s turnPartner’s turnLater at LHO’s turnDo not use the ordinary Law 32 acceptance route. An inadmissible double or redouble may never be accepted.
Offender must repeat the out-of-rotation double/redouble. If admissible, there is no rectification.
Law 16C2 applies. At offender’s proper turn, offender may make any legal call; then assess whether it is comparable.
Assess offender’s callCompare the meaning attributable to the withdrawn call with the legal replacement under Law 23.
YesNoUnsure — open Comparable Call moduleWhere the governing Law provides the comparable-call route, partner is not restricted merely because of the withdrawn call and Law 26B does not apply. Keep Law 23C in mind for later damage.
On the Law 30B1, 31A2/B or 32A2/B branches, partner must pass when next it is partner’s turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.
First check: was an opening-lead card actually faced?
Yes — a card was facedNo — selected / face down onlyThis determines whether the special defender-OLOOT choices in Law 54A–D apply, or whether Law 54E sends the Director to Law 24.
Wrong defenderDeclarer / declaring sideLaw 54 is for a faced opening lead out of turn. Establish whether a card was merely selected or led face down, and identify the correct opening leader before proceeding.
This is not the ordinary Law 54 defender-OLOOT choice. Law 54E sends the Director to Law 24 because the attempted opening lead occurred before the play period had begun.
Could declarer have seen any of dummy’s cards (other than cards exposed during the auction and subject to Law 24)?
YesNoIf declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards, Law 54C requires acceptance of the opening lead. The presumed declarer remains declarer.
If declarer begins to spread the hand and exposes one or more cards in doing so, the entire hand must be spread: declarer becomes dummy and the original dummy becomes declarer.
YesNoDeclarer spreads the whole hand and becomes dummy; dummy becomes declarer. The faced opening lead stands.
Acceptance may be by a statement or by a play from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead.
YesNoThe irregular opening lead becomes the correct lead. Dummy is spread normally. The second card to the trick is played from declarer’s hand.
Explain both choices without steering declarer.
Accept the irregular leadRefuse itThe faced opening lead is retracted and becomes a major penalty card. The correct opening leader is offender’s partner, so declarer now has the Law 50D2 lead choices.
Whose card is exposed?
DefenderDeclarer / dummyNo card of declarer’s or dummy’s hand becomes a penalty card. Establish why it was exposed and use the relevant play, claim or opening-lead law instead.
Was it a single card below honour rank, exposed unintentionally (for example accidentally dropped or one of two cards accidentally played)?
YesNo — major penalty cardLeave it face up. The defender may not play another card of that suit below honour rank until the minor penalty card has first been played, but may play an honour of the suit instead. Partner has no lead restriction merely because of a minor penalty card.
Leave the card face up. Is the player who owns the penalty card now to play, or is their partner now to lead?
Owner to playPartner to leadNeither yetA major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity — whether leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. Following suit and any applicable lead/play restriction take precedence. If two or more penalty cards can legally be played, declarer designates which is played.
The major penalty card remains exposed until it can legally be played or until a Law 50D2 lead option causes it to be picked up.
Do not allow the lead until declarer has selected one of the Law 50D2 options.
Require the penalty-card suitProhibit that suitNo requirement or prohibitionPartner must lead the suit of the penalty card. The penalty card is then picked up and is no longer a penalty card. If the player cannot make the required lead, apply Law 59.
Partner may not lead the penalty-card suit for as long as that player retains the lead. The penalty card is picked up and ceases to be a penalty card.
The penalty card stays face up. If partner retains the lead and the penalty card is still unplayed, the Law 50D2 choices arise again at the following trick.
What happened? If this was the opening lead, use the separate Law 54 route.
A later card was led out of turnA defender led/played prematurelyTwo cards appeared together / nearly togetherSomeone played after an irregular lead/playUse the dedicated opening-lead route: Law 54 has additional choices and consequences.
Go to Opening Lead OOTHas declarer accepted the lead, or has the hand next in rotation already played to it?
YesNoBefore trick 13, a faced lead out of turn becomes a correct lead if accepted by statement or if the hand next in rotation plays to it, subject to Law 53B. Continue the trick from that lead.
The irregular lead is withdrawn. The card becomes a major penalty card. The correct player now leads, and if that player is the offender's partner the Law 50D lead options apply.
Did either defender accept the lead, or did the next hand play to it?
Yes — acceptedNoIf either defender requires declarer to lead from the correct hand, declarer withdraws the card led in error and leads from the proper hand. The withdrawn card is returned to declarer's hand without penalty.
Was this a defender leading to the next trick before partner had played to the current trick, or playing out of turn before partner?
Premature lead to next trickPremature play to current trickKeep the prematurely led card exposed while the Director establishes the exact sequence. Law 57 gives declarer options affecting offender's partner; the consequences depend on what partner can legally play and whether the premature card can legally be played at offender's proper turn.
Stop further play. Determine whether Law 57 applies and whether offender's partner is compelled or restricted in the card that may be played. If the premature card cannot legally be played when offender's proper turn arrives, it becomes a major penalty card.
If two players appear to lead or play simultaneously, establish which card was first. If it is impossible or the plays are effectively simultaneous, apply Law 58 rather than assuming one was simply out of turn.
Whose subsequent play was it?
The hand next in rotationA member of the non-offending side acted before rectificationThe offending side continuedA play by the hand next in rotation can make a faced lead out of turn a correct lead. Check Law 53B and any special circumstance before continuing.
When the non-offending side acts after an irregularity and before rectification, Law 60 may cause the right to rectification to be lost. Establish the precise order before ruling.
Do not let further cards obscure the original irregularity. Record the order in which cards were exposed or played, then apply the governing law; additional exposed defender cards may themselves become penalty cards.
A hesitation is not itself an infraction. First establish, as a matter of fact, whether extraneous information from partner was available: for example an unmistakable hesitation, unusual speed, remark, question, explanation, gesture, unexpected alert or failure to alert.
Hesitation / UI allegedNo UI establishedAsk each side what happened before looking at the hand to infer whether there was something to think about. Record the auction/play, approximate timing, any remarks/questions/alerts, and whether the facts are agreed.
Yes — UI establishedNoFacts disputedFirst decide the factual issue on the available evidence. Record both accounts and any independent evidence. Looking at the hand and deciding that the player “must have hesitated” should be a last resort.
Identify the information conveyed and ask whether it demonstrably suggested one action over another. Do not simply ask whether the later action was reasonable bridge.
A particular action/direction was suggestedNo relevant action was demonstrably suggestedSuggestion unclear / could point different waysA pause can sometimes suggest more than one thing. Analyse what information a player of this class, using these methods, would obtain from it. Consult another TD where practicable.
Continue if an action is demonstrably suggestedNo demonstrable suggestion establishedRecord the actual call or play. Law 16B matters only if the player selected an action demonstrably suggested over another action that was a logical alternative.
Yes / possiblyNoA logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of comparable players, using the same partnership methods, would seriously consider and some might select.
Yes / unsure — pollClearly no logical alternativeRecord the hand, auction/play, vulnerability/scoring, relevant partnership methods and the approximate class of player. Do not tell consultees about the hesitation or other UI.
EBU guidance treats “significant proportion” as approximately at least one player in five seriously considering the alternative. If that threshold is met, decide whether some of those players would actually choose it; “some” means more than an isolated exception.
Logical alternative exists and UI suggested chosen actionNo logical alternative establishedPoll inconclusiveThe poll does not replace the Director's judgement. If the sample is weak, mixed or not genuinely comparable, obtain further opinions or consult another TD before deciding.
Return to poll assessmentIf there is no logical alternative to the action taken, the Law 16B restriction does not require substitution of another action. Record the reasoning. Consider separately whether conduct under Law 73C requires attention in an exceptional case.
The existence of UI alone does not justify changing the score. Record the facts and the reason no relevant action was demonstrably suggested.
The chosen action is disallowed for adjustment purposes because it was demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative. Determine what would probably have happened had the player selected from the legally available alternatives.
Reconstruct the auction and play from the point of the infraction using only outcomes achievable in a legal manner. If more than one legal outcome has a genuine probability, use the applicable Law 12 weighting principles.
No UI ruling on these facts. Consider whether another irregularity occurred.
The player did not choose the action demonstrably suggested by the UI. Record the facts if disputed and consider any separate irregularity.
First establish the partnership understanding. Do not decide the case merely by comparing the explanation with the hand held.
Was the explanation, alert or announcement consistent with the partnership understanding?
No / possibly notYes — possible misbid/deviationAgreement unclear / conflicting evidenceCheck system card/file, partnership evidence, prior agreements and both players separately where appropriate. Conflicting information itself requires investigation.
If partner accurately disclosed the partnership agreement but the bidder departed from it, opponents have normally received the information to which they are entitled. The misbid itself is not misinformation.
However, investigate whether partner knew or could infer the departure from partnership experience, and whether either player received unauthorised information from an alert, announcement, explanation, tempo, gesture or reaction.
Possible UI / fieldingNo evidence of UI or undisclosed understandingConsider psyche/deviation routeIf the opponents were accurately told the partnership agreement, do not adjust simply because the bidder forgot or departed from it. Record the facts if disputed.
A player who hears partner give an explanation inconsistent with the player’s intended meaning may now possess unauthorised information. Subsequent action must be judged under the UI rules, independently of whether opponents were misinformed.
Open UI engineBack to MIWho discovered the problem?
Player realises their own explanation was wrong/incompletePlayer knows partner’s explanation/alert was wrongOpponent raises the issue / discovered after the auctionWhen was this realised?
During the auctionDuring the play periodAfter playThe player may call earlier, but must correct their own erroneous or incomplete explanation before the Clarification Period ends. The Director then considers whether an opponent may change a call and any further consequences.
A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation — including a required alert/announcement omitted or an unnecessary one given — must not correct the error during the auction or indicate that a mistake has been made.
After the final pass, the timing of correction depends on whether that player’s side becomes declaring side or defending side. Use the current Law 20/75 procedure before play begins or at the required later point.
Before the opening lead is faced, summon the Director and ensure the opponents receive the correct partnership information. The Director considers Law 21B/40B3 consequences, including whether the last opponent may change a call where the Law permits.
Assess auction consequencesFollow the Law 20F5/75 timing for a defender’s correction. Do not volunteer a correction at a time that improperly gives partner information. If uncertain, call the Director privately before taking action.
Once play has begun, do not improvise a table correction. Establish the partnership agreement, what was said, what the opponents knew when making their auction/play decisions, and whether the misinformation caused damage.
Record the auction, alerts/announcements, questions and answers, system evidence, and the point at which the opponents learned the correct agreement. Do not assume failure to alert automatically caused damage.
Assess damageAgreement still disputedApply Law 21B precisely. The Director decides whether the conditions for changing a call after corrected misinformation are met; do not simply rewind the auction by agreement at the table.
Identify each relevant decision by the non-offending side: call, lead or play. What would the player likely have done with the correct partnership information available at that moment?
Different action is reasonably possibleNo meaningful effectUncertain — evidence neededGive suitable players the hand, auction and correct information, but do not tell them the table result or the alleged misinformation if that would bias the poll. Establish plausible calls/plays and their frequencies, then reconstruct the likely outcomes.
Use adjusted-score engineObtain system evidence and, where bridge judgement is involved, poll/consult. Separate damage caused by misinformation from a poor result that would probably have occurred anyway.
Poll / reconstructRecheck agreementA disclosure irregularity can exist without causing compensable damage. Record or deal with any procedural matter separately; do not alter the score merely to punish the failure.
Establish the partnership agreement, the misinformation actually given, and what the non-offending side would likely have done with correct information. If damage resulted, adjust under Law 12; keep any procedural penalty separate.
Stop and establish exactly what happened. Was this a claim, a concession, or merely a statement about the trick currently in progress?
ClaimConcessionCurrent trick onlyNot sureRecord the exact words used, number of tricks claimed or conceded, whose turn it was, cards already played to the current trick, and the cards remaining. Do not let later discussion improve the original claim statement.
A statement or action concerning only the winning or losing of the trick currently in progress is not, by itself, a Law 68 claim or concession of later tricks. Continue under the ordinary play laws, checking any exposed-card or unauthorised-information issue if relevant.
What line of play or defence did the claimant state at the time of the claim? The claimant should face the hand and give a clear proposed order of play.
Statement recorded — continueNo useful line was statedDo not invite the claimant to construct a better line after objection. Record that the original statement was absent or incomplete. If the claim is contested, doubtful points are resolved against the claimant under Law 70.
ContinueIf agreement is established, score the board on the basis of the agreed claim. A later withdrawal of agreement within the correction period is dealt with under Law 69B, not as an ordinary contested claim.
Within the applicable correction period, determine whether the player agreed to lose a trick already won by that side, or a trick that side would likely have won had play continued. Award such trick as Law 69B directs. This is a fact/judgement decision; the EBU White Book notes that Law 69B2 does not produce a weighted score.
Under Law 68D2(b), continuation without adjudication is only available at the request of the non-claiming/non-conceding side and with all four players concurring. If those conditions were met, the prior claim/concession is void and the result subsequently obtained stands. Otherwise reconstruct the facts and apply the appropriate claim law.
Yes — all four concurredNo / uncertainThe prior claim or concession is void. The score obtained through the subsequent play stands, subject to the precise Law 68D2 conditions having been satisfied.
Use the position and the claimant's original statement. Resolve doubtful points against the claimant. Consider only lines that are “normal” for the class of player concerned; in this context normal includes play that is careless or inferior, but not irrational.
If a defender attempts to concede and partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. The Director should be called. Information from any exposed defender card may be unauthorised to partner; apply the current Law 68B2 procedure.
Within the correction period, a concession is cancelled for a trick the conceding side had already won, or a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. “Normal” includes careless or inferior play for the class of player involved.
First identify the problem.
Have either of these pairs previously played this board?
NoYes / possibly / unsureApply Law 15. If neither pair has previously played the board and the Law 15 conditions are met, the result may stand. Then correct the movement/scoring consequences.
Establish exactly who has previously played, seen or discussed the board. Do not allow normal play to continue if prior knowledge may make a valid result impossible.
Can the board still be played in the orientation in which the players have taken their cards, and can the scoring system accommodate that orientation?
YesNo / contest format prevents itEBU guidance says that where a board was wrongly arrow-switched, not arrow-switched when required, or cards were accidentally taken from the wrong slots, the board should normally be played in that incorrect orientation if scoring can accommodate the result.
Some formats, including two-winner pairs and teams-of-four, may not be able to accommodate the incorrect orientation. Establish all results already obtained and use the applicable Law 87/Law 12 procedure rather than improvising a score.
Determine forms/groupsRecord the card layout/orientation for every identifiable group of tables. A fouled board exists when contestants who should have been compared did not play an identical form because cards were displaced or dealer/vulnerability differed between copies.
Yes — identify groupsCannot establish the formsDetermine as closely as possible which tables played each form. Do not automatically cancel all results and do not combine materially different forms into one field.
Does each form have at least one other comparable result?
YesNo — one result has no comparatorFor pairs/individual scoring, score each identifiable form against the other results obtained on that same form. Apply the EBU Neuberg or small-sub-field procedure as appropriate.
For pairs/individual scoring, EBU guidance treats this as a case where no result can be obtained. Use Law 12C2 rather than inventing a matchpoint percentage.
Artificial adjusted scoreCheck responsibility firstAsk the players, inspect the board and travellers/results, and establish the sequence of forms on the balance of probabilities. Conclusive proof of who fouled the board is not required before deciding which form each table played.
Can you identify two or more coherent forms/groups?
YesNoRecord the investigation and use the Law 12 adjusted-score machinery for results for which no valid comparison can be obtained. Do not guess a reconstructed deal.
Adjusted Score EngineScoring the different forms and deciding responsibility are separate questions. Establish whether one side, both sides, or no identifiable contestant was responsible. Apply any procedural action consistently with the event regulations; do not distort the bridge comparison merely as punishment.
Record the incidentEstablish the meaning attributable to the withdrawn call and the meaning of the proposed replacement. Does the replacement have the same or similar meaning, or define a subset of the possible meanings?
Yes / likelyNoBorderline / unsureIf the Director judges the replacement comparable, the auction may continue without the restrictions that would otherwise follow the withdrawn call. Keep the board under review for any advantage created by the irregularity.
Apply the consequences specified by the law governing the original irregularity, including partner restrictions and Law 26 lead restrictions where applicable.
Compare meanings, not bidding-card appearance. A replacement can be comparable through similar meaning or by being a more precise subset. Do not guess if the system meaning is unclear.
BackStart with the partnership understanding, the actual hand and what the player believed the call meant. Do not classify an unusual call merely from its appearance.
Establish agreement and player beliefRecord the explicit system, relevant implicit understandings, actual hand, call made, alerts/announcements and explanations. Then ask privately if useful: did the player believe the call conformed to the partnership method?
Yes — player believed it fitted the methodNo — player knowingly departedUnclear / disputedObtain the players’ accounts separately where appropriate. Check system cards/files and previous partnership experience. Do not guess whether the action was deliberate.
Return when facts establishedIf the player believed the call was systemically correct, it is not a deliberate psyche on that account. Determine whether the partnership actually shares that understanding.
Partner also regards this type of hand as within the methodPartner says the agreement is differentEstablish the actual partnership understanding and consult the current EBU system regulations for the event. Deal separately with any misinformation/damage and any regulatory or procedural consequence.
Check misinformation / damageFinish / consultA misbid is an inadvertent departure: the player intended to use the partnership method but made a call that did not match it. Check whether partner accurately described the agreement. The player may also have UI from partner's alert, announcement or explanation.
Check misinformationCheck unauthorised informationCheck partnership historyClassify the departure by comparing the actual hand with the partnership understanding. A deliberate gross misstatement points towards a psyche; a deliberate minor misstatement towards a deviation.
Gross departure — possible psycheMinor departure — possible deviationBorderline — TD judgementRecord the expected strength/shape and the actual strength/shape. The practical next question is often more important than the label: did partner have more reason than the opponents to expect the departure?
Check partnership knowledgeA psyche is a deliberate and gross departure from the partnership understanding. Psyching itself is normally a legitimate ploy provided it surprises partner as much as the opponents. Now investigate possible fielding or an undisclosed understanding.
Check partnership knowledge and historyA deviation is a deliberate but minor departure. It can still reveal an implicit partnership understanding if repeated or anticipated by partner.
Check partnership knowledge and historyAsk about previous similar actions, partnership experience and whether partner would genuinely be surprised. Review relevant records where available. Repetition can turn an apparent departure into an implicit understanding requiring disclosure.
Partner's action/history suggests awarenessNo evidence partner had extra awarenessSome evidence, but not enough to concludeCompare partner's action with what peers would normally do if they believed the disclosed method. Intent is not the test. An action unexpectedly well adapted to the departure can be evidence of a concealed partnership understanding.
Evidence sufficient for concealed understandingEvidence raises concern but is insufficientAction is normal on disclosed informationRecord the evidence carefully. Check whether the understanding was disclosed and permitted. If opponents were damaged by non-disclosure or an impermissible understanding, use the appropriate misinformation/Law 12 route. Consider any EBU procedural consequence separately.
Misinformation / disclosure routeAdjusted Score EngineRecord caseRecord the case. Similar future occurrences can strengthen evidence that an implicit understanding exists. Do not manufacture a score adjustment merely because the action looks suspicious.
Record caseIf the departure genuinely surprised partner as much as the opponents and there is no misinformation or other irregularity causing damage, there is no automatic score adjustment merely because the call was a psyche or deviation.
Record if appropriateExplicit and implicit understandings must be disclosed. If partnership experience means partner knows this type of departure may occur, that inference may itself require disclosure.
Yes — no disclosure problem identifiedNo / possibly not — misinformation routeRecord: board and session; vulnerability/position; full hand; exact call and auction; stated agreement; player's belief; partner's explanation; partner's subsequent actions; previous similar occurrences; classification; disclosure finding; evidence of fielding/CPU; damage; adjustment; consultation and final ruling.
First decide whether an adjustment is actually required. Do not use a weighted score merely to compromise between the two sides.
An irregularity may have caused damageNo normal result can be obtainedPunishment / procedural issueCompare the table result with the probable outcome had the infraction not occurred. The question is causation, not whether the non-offending side played perfectly afterwards.
Yes / probably — reconstruct the legal outcomeNo — no score adjustmentUncertain — investigate / pollIdentify the decision point affected by the irregularity. Where bridge judgement is involved, obtain an unbiased poll of suitable players. Record the methods, information they were given, choices made and alternatives seriously considered.
If the irregularity did not cause damage, retain the table result. Any separate procedural or disciplinary matter is considered independently.
Seek as nearly as possible the probable outcome had the infraction not occurred. Include only outcomes achievable in a legal manner.
Yes — one or more credible bridge outcomesNo — consider an artificial adjusted scoreAssign the contract, declarer, result and score that most nearly represent the probable legal outcome without the infraction. Record the evidence and reasoning.
List each realistic legal outcome and assign probabilities reflecting the evidence. Do not include an action already disallowed by the Laws (for example a UI action barred by Law 16B).
For each possible result, determine the score it would produce under the event's scoring method, then apply the probability weighting at that level. Do not simply average the raw bridge scores first when that would give a different matchpoint/IMP result.
If normal bridge outcomes cannot sensibly be assigned because the possibilities are too numerous or insufficiently clear, move to the artificial-adjusted-score test rather than inventing arbitrary weights.
Artificial score testConsider Law 12C1(e) only where the later action amounts to an extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction, or a gambling action of the type contemplated by the Law. Ordinary bad bridge is not enough.
No — continue with normal adjustmentYes / possibly — consider split treatmentWhere the Laws require different treatment of the two sides, the adjusted scores need not necessarily be complementary. Apply the precise Law 12 provision and record why each side receives its score.
Explain and record rulingPrefer an assigned result where a credible legal bridge outcome can be established. Use an artificial score only where the Laws/regulations require it because a normal result cannot be obtained or assigned.
Yes — reconstructNo — artificial scoreEstablish which side was responsible for the inability to obtain a normal result and apply Law 12C2 and the applicable EBU/event regulation. Do not enter “Not Played” as a substitute for a required artificial adjusted score.
Apply the exact Law 12C2 value for the event's scoring method; do not assume a percentage without checking the regulation.
An adjusted score is intended to redress damage. A procedural or disciplinary penalty, where authorised, is a separate decision and should not be hidden inside the adjusted bridge result.
Behaviour / procedural routeBack to adjusted scoreRecord: irregularity; damage; counterfactual auction/play; poll evidence; legal outcomes considered; probabilities (if any); scoring calculation; any Law 12C1(e) issue; final score for each side.
Full table scriptLAWRecord round length, time called, boards remaining and whether one pair or both contributed materially. Has this pair already been warned in this session/event?
No previous warningYesResponsibility unclearGive a clear neutral warning, record it and explain the time expectation. Apply the event or club regulation consistently.
Apply the club/event regulation consistently, taking account of responsibility and earlier warnings. Do not invent a bridge-score adjustment merely as a time penalty.
Check when the table fell behind and whether opponents contributed. If necessary monitor before imposing any procedural action.
Is there also a bridge-law irregularity affecting the board result?
YesNo — behaviour onlyFirst make the bridge ruling and any score adjustment required by the Laws. Then deal separately with behaviour/procedure under the club or event regulations. Do not add tricks to punish rudeness.
Behaviour actionDescribe the behaviour, not the person. State the expected standard and record the warning where appropriate.
Record facts and witnesses. Apply only a procedural penalty or referral authorised by the event/club regulations. Serious or repeated behaviour may require a formal report or committee referral.
This module is intentionally not yet automated. It will be added only after its judgement and scoring logic has been fully encoded.
HomeExpanded v1.3 book-ruling routes. Opening Lead Out of Turn and Penalty Cards now branch button-by-button through Laws 48–54, including the Law 50D lead choices.
Insufficient bidCall out of rotationOpening lead out of turnPenalty cardComparable callClaims / concessions1. Stop further calls. 2. Check Law 25A if the bidding card itself may have been unintended. 3. Explain to LHO that the insufficient bid may be accepted. Do not first reveal whether offender has a favourable replacement. 4. If not accepted, explain the Law 27B routes without recommending a call.
1. Freeze the auction and identify whose turn it was. 2. Check Law 28 before imposing rectification. 3. Establish whether offender’s LHO has called, thereby accepting/forfeiting rectification under Law 29A. 4. If cancelled, identify whether the irregular call was a pass, bid, double or redouble and apply Law 30, 31 or 32.
v1.3 now provides the full live route: faced/not faced, declaring-side attempt, mandatory acceptance after seeing dummy, declarer spreading the hand, acceptance, refusal, and the resulting Law 50D choices.
v1.3 distinguishes minor and major penalty cards, then follows a major card through the owner’s turn to play and the three choices when partner is on lead.
A replacement call is comparable if the Director judges that it satisfies one of the Law 23A tests: same or similar meaning; a subset of the possible meanings; or the same purpose (for example an asking bid or relay).
Start by deciding whether this is principally a book ruling or a judgement ruling.
Establish the facts, identify the precise Law branch, explain the options without steering a player’s choice, and give a prompt ruling so play can continue.
Typical examples include revokes, calls or leads out of turn and wrong boards.
Do not decide from the result alone. Establish the agreement and facts, identify the counterfactual, consider polling/consultation where appropriate, then assess damage and adjustment.
Typical examples include UI, misinformation, hesitations, claims and many adjusted-score decisions.
1. Stop unnecessary discussion. 2. Hear facts from both sides. 3. Separate facts from opinions. 4. Explain options neutrally. 5. State ruling and Law/reason. 6. Say whether the ruling is final now or will be reviewed after play.
What part of the game is the problem in?
Choose the closest description.
Choose a scenario. Decide what the TD should establish or say before revealing the answer.
A defender fails to follow suit on trick 6. Their side wins trick 6 and later wins another trick. You are called after trick 8.
Your first task: what facts must you establish before transferring tricks?
Reveal answerConfirm a revoke actually occurred and that it became established; identify who revoked, who won the revoke trick and whether the offending side won a subsequent trick. Then apply Law 64A and still perform the Law 64C equity check.
Next scenarioOpen live Revoke route1NT – (2♠) – 2♥. Before anyone acts, the table calls you.
Question: should you simply tell the player to make the bid sufficient?
Reveal answerNo. First establish whether LHO accepts it and whether the call was unintended. If not, explain the lawful correction options and consequences without choosing a call for the offender. Meaning matters when considering a comparable call.
Training menuOpen live routeThe wrong defender faces an opening lead. Declarer has not yet exposed their hand.
Question: what should the TD stop players doing?
Reveal answerDo not let the faced card be picked up and do not let declarer spread their hand before the Law 54 options have been explained. Establish whether the lead has already been accepted.
Training menuOpen live routePartner thinks for a long time and passes. The player then takes an aggressive action.
Question: is the hesitation itself an infraction?
Reveal answerNot by itself. First establish the break in tempo as a fact. Then decide what it demonstrably suggested. If the later action may have been suggested, poll comparable players without mentioning the hesitation: ask what they would do and what alternatives they seriously considered. Only if another action is a logical alternative does the Law 16B restriction lead towards adjustment.
Training menuOpen live routeA player explains partner’s bid as natural. After play it emerges that the partnership agreement was artificial.
Question: what is the key comparison?
Reveal answerEstablish the actual partnership agreement and compare it with the explanation given. Then assess whether opponents were damaged by misinformation. Do not treat every mistaken call as misinformation: a misbid with a correct explanation is different.
Training menuOpen live routeDeclarer claims four of the last five tricks and says only “the rest are mine”. A defender contests.
Question: what should you preserve immediately?
Reveal answerRecord the exact claim statement and the position at the time of the claim. If the claim is doubted, do not simply tell declarer to play on. Either the Director adjudicates under Law 70, or play can continue only through the specific Law 68D2(b) procedure with the required concurrence. Do not allow the claimant to improve the original line after objection.
Training menuOpen live routeHalf the field played one card layout and half played a materially different layout.
Question: should you automatically cancel every score?
Reveal answerNo. Establish which versions were played and whether valid comparison groups can be formed. Use the fouled-board scoring provisions rather than reflexively cancelling the board.
Training menuOpen live routeA player is rude after receiving an otherwise straightforward ruling.
Question: should the TD alter the bridge score to punish the rudeness?
Reveal answerNo. Keep the bridge ruling separate from behaviour/procedural action. Use only the warning, procedural penalty, report or referral authorised by the applicable regulations.
Training menuOpen live routeUse this when you need wording or reasoning rather than a fresh decision tree.
First decide whether a revoke occurred and whether it became established. If established, apply the automatic rectification where appropriate, then separately check whether equity still requires adjustment.
Do not simply tell the player to make the bid sufficient. Acceptance, an unintended call, same-denomination correction and a comparable call can lead to different consequences.
The result depends on whose turn it was, the type of call, acceptance and whether a later replacement is comparable. Establish facts before withdrawing anything.
A faced opening lead out of turn gives declarer choices. The card should not simply be picked up before those options are explained.
The consequences differ for declarer/dummy and defenders, and for minor and major penalty cards. A defender’s penalty card can also affect partner’s lead.
Acceptance can change the remedy. A defender’s withdrawn card may also create penalty-card consequences, so do not rush to restore cards.
The sequence is: establish the UI as a fact; determine what it demonstrably suggested; identify the action taken; test logical alternatives among comparable players; then adjust only if the Law 16B test is satisfied. A poll should conceal the UI and reproduce the player’s bridge problem and methods.
A misbid and misinformation are different. The opponents are entitled to the partnership agreement; damage is assessed only after the correct agreement and timing are established.
A claim ruling depends heavily on what was actually stated when the claim was made. If the claim is doubted, Law 70 adjudication protects both sides by using the original position and statement rather than hindsight. Since 2017, play can continue after a disputed claim only through the specific Law 68D2(b) procedure; it is not an automatic “play it out” option.
The aim is to preserve every valid result and compare only contestants who played the same form. A rotated or misboarded board is not automatically cancelled. The TD first establishes the forms and groups, then applies the correct scoring treatment, and only afterwards considers responsibility.
A comparable call is about the meaning conveyed, not merely the denomination or level. The TD determines the legal consequences; the player chooses their call.
A psyche, deviation and misbid are not the same. The key regulatory concern is whether there is an undisclosed partnership understanding or evidence that partner can anticipate the departure.
An adjusted score is redress, not punishment. Reconstruct what would likely have happened without the irregularity and use the scoring method authorised by Law 12.
Slow-play action should be consistent and evidence-based. Record the delay and responsibility; apply the published regulation rather than inventing an ad-hoc bridge penalty.
A bridge rectification and a behaviour response are separate. Do not alter a bridge result merely because conduct was poor; use the authorised procedural or disciplinary route.
Use these as discussion prompts. Decide first whether the case is GREEN, AMBER or RED, then identify the facts you still need.
A defender accidentally exposes a card while correcting a mechanical error. What do you establish before ruling?
Use live penalty-card routeBackA player passes before partner has called. The opponents immediately ask whether partner must pass throughout. What should the TD do first?
Use live call-out-of-rotation routeBackAfter an irregular call, the offender asks, “Can I bid 2♥ without barring partner?” How should you handle the discussion?
Use live comparable-call routeBackA player makes a call grossly different from the partnership’s stated method. Opponents call it a psyche. What facts distinguish psyche, deviation, misbid and undisclosed understanding?
Use live psyche routeBackOne table is seven minutes behind, but both pairs say the other caused the delay. What should be recorded before action is taken?
Use live slow-play routeBackYou establish that an explanation was wrong. Does that automatically mean an adjusted score?
Use live adjusted-score routeBackEnter the details directly. Date is prepopulated automatically. When you choose “Record this ruling” from a ruling screen, the ruling type and principal Law references are filled in for you but remain editable.
Saved incidents are retained on this device. The Law / regulation considered is stored with each incident.
Entries are kept on this device automatically where browser storage is available. They are not sent anywhere.
Prepare consultationHomeUse this format so the consulted TD receives the bridge problem without unnecessary advocacy.
For UI or other judgement questions, do not contaminate a player poll by mentioning the hesitation or telling poll participants what ruling you are considering.
Incident RecordHomeBefore finalising: establish the actual result, reconstruct the likely lawful result if required, check whether damage was caused by the irregularity, consult where bridge judgement is needed, then explain the final ruling to both sides.
Record rulingHomeWork each case by asking: What facts must I establish first? Do not jump straight to a Law number.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
No JavaScript is used. On iPhone/iPad use the browser's native controls:
Complete the editable fields above before using Share/Print.
Revoke Insufficient Bid Call Out of Rotation Opening Lead Out of Turn Exposed / Penalty Card Lead / Play Out of Turn Hesitation / Unauthorised Information Misinformation / Failure to Alert Claim / Concession Wrong / Fouled Board / Misboarding Comparable Call Psyche / Deviation / Misbid Adjusted Score Slow Play Behaviour / Procedural Matter
Wrong Number / Missing CardChange of CallDummy — Rights & LimitationsCard Played / Called from DummyInspection of Tricks / Turned CardsResult / Score Correction
Step 1. Stop play and count all four hands. Is any hand holding more than 13 cards?
YES — at least one hand has more than 13 NO — no hand has more than 13iPhone / iPad: Share → Print → enlarge the preview with two fingers → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
Step 1. Ask the player privately: “Did you intend to make the call that you actually selected or said at the moment you made it?”
NO — the call itself was unintendedYES — it was intended, but I now want to change itiPhone / iPad: Share → Print → enlarge the preview with two fingers → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
What happened?
Dummy asked about a possible revoke Dummy tried to prevent an irregularity Dummy called / tried to call the Director Dummy drew attention to an irregularity during play Dummy looked at another player's hand / left seat Other question about dummy's rightsiPhone / iPad: Share → Print → enlarge the preview with two fingers → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
What is the question?
Card from declarer's hand — was it played? Card from defender's hand — was it played? Declarer called / indicated a card from dummy More than one card played to the trick / fifth card Player wants to withdraw a played cardiPhone / iPad: Share → Print → enlarge the preview with two fingers → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
At what stage is the request being made?
Cards are still face up on the current trick Player wants to see their own last card Player wants to inspect an earlier quitted trick Play has finishediPhone / iPad: Share → Print → enlarge the preview with two fingers → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
This route corrects or determines the table result. It is not the same as awarding an adjusted score under Law 12.
What is wrong?
Players agree the result, but Bridgemate / score entry is wrong Players disagree about the number of tricks The error was discovered later / correction-period issue The result itself needs an adjusted score — go to Law 12iPhone / iPad: Share → Print → enlarge the preview with two fingers → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
Step 2. Has a player with an incorrect number of cards already made a call?
NOYESCorrect the discrepancy if the Director can identify the proper ownership of the card(s). Then allow the board to be played. Consider whether information from the correction is unauthorised or otherwise affects the board.
Record this rulingBackStep 3. Can the deal be corrected and played without changing the call already made?
YES — correct and continueNO — board cannot sensibly continueCorrect the hand and continue with the existing call unchanged. If information arising from the irregularity could affect later action, apply the relevant information provisions and consider adjustment only if required.
Record this rulingIf the deal cannot be corrected so that normal play can continue under Law 13B, cancel the board for the affected contestants and award an adjusted score under Law 12 as appropriate.
Record this rulingStep 2. Is one or more hand short of 13 cards?
YES — card(s) missingNO — recount / investigate another irregularityStep 3. Has the opening lead been faced?
NOYESSearch for the missing card. If found, restore it to the deficient hand. If it cannot be found, reconstruct the deal using another pack. Calls already made remain in place.
Record this rulingSearch for and restore the missing card in accordance with Law 14B. If it has become mixed with cards already played, Law 67 may also be relevant. Consider the information consequences described in Law 14C.
Record this rulingStep 2. Is the Director satisfied this was genuinely a mechanical/verbal slip, rather than a change of mind, loss of concentration, or later realisation?
YESNOStep 3. Was the correction attempted without pause for thought and before partner made a call? The Director must apply the precise Law 25A timing conditions.
YES — conditions satisfiedNO — condition not satisfiedPermit the unintended call to be replaced by the call the player intended at the time. The substituted call is treated in accordance with Law 25A. Do not use this provision for a player who has merely reconsidered.
Record this rulingThe Director should not permit substitution under Law 25A when its conditions are no longer satisfied. Continue from the call that legally stands, dealing with any attempted replacement under the applicable Law.
Record this rulingA call deliberately selected or spoken cannot be changed simply because the player has reconsidered, noticed something previously missed, or now prefers another call. If the player has actually substituted another call, apply Law 25B to the attempted change.
Record this rulingiPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
Whom did dummy ask?
DeclarerA defenderDummy may ask declarer whether declarer has a card of the suit led when declarer may have failed to follow suit.
Record this rulingDummy does not have the corresponding right to question a defender about a possible revoke. Establish exactly what was said and whether dummy's action affected subsequent play; apply Law 43 as appropriate.
Record this rulingDummy has qualified rights to try to prevent an irregularity by declarer. Distinguish prevention before it occurs from drawing attention to an irregularity after it has occurred.
Record this rulingHad another player already drawn attention to the irregularity?
YESNOOnce another player has drawn attention to an irregularity, dummy is not barred merely from participating in the Director call within dummy's lawful role.
Record this rulingDummy generally may not initiate a Director call during play before another player has drawn attention to the irregularity. Establish whether any specific Law 43 consequence applies and whether a procedural penalty is appropriate.
Record this rulingDummy generally may not draw attention to an irregularity during play. Record exactly what dummy did and apply the specific Law 43 consequence where the Law provides one; do not invent an automatic trick penalty.
Record this rulingEstablish whether dummy looked at the face of a card in another player's hand or left the seat to watch declarer/defender. Apply Law 43's limitations and any specific consequence arising from the facts.
Record this rulingUse Law 42 to identify dummy's absolute and qualified rights, then Law 43 for limitations and consequences. If the conduct does not fit clearly, consult the exact Law wording before ruling.
Record this rulingHas declarer held the card face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained it in a position indicating it has been played? Apply the Law 45 test to the facts; mere exposure is not always identical to a played card.
Record this rulingA defender's card becomes played when held so that partner could see its face. If it is exposed without becoming a played card in the relevant circumstances, penalty-card Laws may apply.
Record this rulingWhat happened?
Declarer says the designation was unintendedDesignation was incomplete / ambiguousDetermine whether this was genuinely an unintended designation rather than a change of mind. Apply the precise timing restriction in Law 45C4(b); once the conditions for correction have passed, the designated card stands.
Record this rulingApply Law 46's rules for an incomplete or invalid designation — for example naming only a suit or saying “high”/“low”. Do not let declarer choose afresh after seeing the consequence.
Record this rulingEstablish who contributed the extra card and whether it is a fifth card to the trick or simultaneous play. Apply Law 45E and the relevant correction/penalty-card provisions rather than simply returning the card to hand.
Record this rulingWhy is withdrawal requested?
Required/permitted by a Law or because an opponent changed playPlayer simply changed their mindPermit withdrawal only in a circumstance expressly covered by Law 47. Then deal with information from the withdrawn card and any defender penalty-card consequence.
Record this rulingA card legally played cannot normally be withdrawn merely because the player now prefers another card.
Record this rulingWhile all four cards remain face up, a player may require that each card be faced so the trick can be inspected. Once a player has turned their own card face down, distinguish this from the limited right to inspect their own last card.
Record this rulingUntil their side has led or played to the next trick, a player may inspect — but not expose — their own last card. They do not thereby gain a right to inspect the other three cards.
Record this rulingAfter play has proceeded, quitted tricks may not be inspected merely to determine who played which cards. The Director may control inspection where a Law requires fact-finding.
Record this rulingAfter play, cards may be inspected for a claim of revoke or to establish the number of tricks won/lost, under the Director's control. If the issue is disagreement about the result, continue to Law 79 fact-finding.
Result is disputed — continue to Law 79Record Law 66 rulingConfirm the table result from the available evidence. If the players agree the result and only the Bridgemate/score entry is wrong, correct the recorded result subject to the correction period and event procedures.
Record this rulingCan the facts be established? Ask each side separately, inspect cards where Law 66 permits, check the play record/Bridgemate information if available, and apply Law 85 to disputed facts.
YES — TD can determine the resultNO — material doubt remainsRule on the number of tricks won from the facts established and correct the recorded result accordingly.
Record this rulingWhen the Director must rule on disputed facts, decide on the balance of probabilities in accordance with Law 85, using all available evidence. Record the evidence relied upon.
Record this rulingEstablish when the error was discovered and check the correction period set by the organiser/regulating authority. Apply Law 79C together with the event's published procedure; do not assume every late error can or cannot be changed.
Record this rulingiPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.
iPhone/iPad: Share → Print → enlarge preview → Share → Save to Files / Print / Mail.