[blackshoe]

The version of the laws I'm using is a pdf downloaded off a link on the "Charts, Rules, and Regulations" page.

[jallerton]

Interesting. Aside from the translation of certain English words into the related language of American, the document referred to in the link provided by Ed seems to differ somewhat from The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation.

Without looking too hard, I find that:

The introduction is different (even though in both versions "this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of these Laws").
ACBL has added a Contents section (which the WBF had decided to omit from the 2007 Laws for some bizarre reason).
Several extra words have been added to Law 12C1(e)(ii).

There may well be other differences.

As the original poster on this thread comes from Belgium, it's safer to use the WBF's own website when confirming the exact wording of the applicable Law.

[blackshoe]

As I understand it, the ACBL maintains that it, and not the WBF, is the final arbiter of the laws in its jurisdiction. So as far as the ACBL is concerned, it can publish whatever it likes in its version of the laws. So yes, I suppose it's safer to use the WBF laws in cases where the jurisdiction is not ACBL. OTOH, IME there aren't that many differences*. And there is no Law 27C2 in the WBF laws, either.

* I believe the most significant difference is the ACBL's footnote to Law 12C2{c}, which says

Quote

In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2{c} above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%.

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2011-January-29, 10:45, said:

What isn't clear to me is what the adjustment should be. Under L. 27C2 I see that the TD awards an artificial adjusted score of at most 40%. The term 'at most' implies there is discretion on my part, doesn't it? What score would I assign?

While the Law book may not be clear, it is understood that the term "at most 40%" which appears in Law 12C2A refers solely to the adjustments prescribed by Law 12C2C, namely that Ave- means 40% unless the contestant gets less than 40% in the session, in which case they get their session average.

This is modified in the ACBL by the footnote to Law 12C2C, in the specific case where Ave+/Ave- has been given, that Ave- means the complement of Ave+: Ave+ means 60% or the pair's session score whichever is greater.

No other discretion is allowed.

On a matter of nomenclature, when a TD awards an adjusted score, it is either an assigned score or an artificial score. So you only refer to a TD "assigning" a score when he is awarding an assigned score, where he does have discretion.

[mycroft]

Originally there were three Law Makers, each for their own locations: the ACBL, the Portland Club, and the WBF. Each of them published their own version of the Laws, valid in their jurisdiction.

They decided at some point to co-ordinate their efforts, through the WBF Laws Committee; and the Portland Club has ceded their rights to the WBF; but the Laws are still published by two publishers, with the copyright in the relevant areas still belonging to each organization.

As the ACBL is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, this, and the several other uniquities in/with the ACBL, isn't likely to go away soon.