Join Bridge Winners
Should I have been harsher?

Two rulings in the last two weeks.


1)  A player is suspected of revoking.  When I arrive at the table, he has picked up his last 5 cards preventing me from seeing the revoke, though the cards seemed to be in his hand in the order the opponents claimed they were played.     I ruled that he had in fact revoked as claimed, and cautioned that if he wanted a chance to win vs future claims, he needed to leave his cards alone until the director could establish facts.       Should I have assigned a penalty as well as awarding the revoke trick?  (there was no evidence that he "shuffled" the last 5 cards)

2)  A player makes an insufficient bid.     2N P 2  alerted as a transfer to clubs.     Not a mispull, and not accepted.   Having heard her options, she chose to bid 3.   Since 3 would be Stayman, her partner was barred, and she managed to play a contract she could not otherwise have played.     I ruled that if 3 was a winning contract, equity would be restored.     3 was not a winning contract, and 4 would have made.   4 and 3N also makes.      Should I have assigned a penalty?

I am feeling like I should have given extra penalties and that my fear of losing club players may have influenced me to be soft.

Does the reputation of either player make a difference?

No penalties
Penalty on 1)
Penalty on 2)
Penalty on Both
I don't know
Something more serious than a penalty is in order.

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top