Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Vigfus Palsson
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sitting in my chair, relaxing, and then I see this peeking.
This is something that almost no TD is prepared to deal with right on the spot.

Of course I was shocked. I know this person. I had never seen anything unethical from him before.

The board had not been entered into the bridgemate, so there was my proof it had not been played.

I went out of the playing area, trying to find out how to handle this. I decided to do nothing at the moment, but 2 hours later, this player was not playing, I took him aside and asked him why he did this. I made it sure that noone had any idea about our onversation.

He was shocked when I asked and knew immediately what I was talking about. He convinced me that he did not cheat, (I am not informing you how he did it because that could tell some Icelanders who this person is)

The bidding had completed on this board. Then a cigarette break. East was becoming Dummy, and North the opening leader.
He looked at the North hand (which is of course illegal) and put it back and followed his table mates for the cigarette.

I was lucky not making any action on the spot. It could have been easy to ruin the tournament by some harch reactions.

I am the only one who know the name of this person.
June 5
Vigfus Palsson edited this comment June 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
the board had not been played
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ian
CC's were probably not required, although this was international tournament ( I was not a TD there )
It does not matter what the actual agreement is, when they can not give the TD proof of it.
It does not matter what west thinks about his final pass.
May 22
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No convention card at the table. North thought the 2 diamond bid was weak, South ment it defenetly forcing.
May 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing useful on the Convention card
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I did not ask these questions.
April 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Henrik

English is not my language. Perhaps I misunderstand.

But when some information are gathered by letting the opp's going into an unethical trap, (on purpose or not) my understanding is that is UI.

In this case, I see MI, by not alerting 2, leading to the 2, which is in my opinion UI for E/W, but AI to N/S.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Ed

One of my favorite law is 12A1

This law is used when a TD does not find the right law to rule, although everything says that justice can not be redressed by othert methods.

I have used 12A1 a few times in my 12 years as TD, and the players always accepted my ruling.

But here law 16D1 can be used. ( the listing there of accidentally cases is not all possible incidents) And then use law 16D2d for adjusting score.
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here in Iceland, the alert rules are…

A bid (call, double, redouble and PASS) is alertable if it includes information which is probably unknown to the opp's.

It also includes a responsibility for the alerting side to offer announcement of the alert to the opp's.

So if this would have happened here in Iceland, and I the TD, this would be the reasoning and ruling from my point of view.

1. The 2 bid is alertable because it shows 5 card suit, and East should explain it before North makes a bid.
2. North has no reason to believe that the 2 is something else than a general 1 round forcing bid.
3. North makes a 2 natural bid.
4. Now East knows that the split 5-0, because North has not a knowledge of the suit in West. ( Would anyone bid his freely knowing that?)
5. This knowledge is UI to East and rules out the possiblilty of playing in a contract. Lets try 3NT. I have possible 8 quick tricks in my hand.
6. The knowledge of the bad heart split is absoutely unauthorised information to east.

So my ruling is… 4 E/W, weighted score, 8 or 9 tricks. (on a bad day, 6 doubled -2)
Jan. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Brown stickers are allowed here in Iceland. So nothing illegal here.
Dec. 30, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who is guilty for this mess ?

It is the South player. If he had put the board properly on the table, we would not be talking about this, and I am sure that South did this unintentionally.

Now East falls into this unintended mousetrap and opens out of turn. (of course he could have avoided this by checking more seriusly what South was doing.)

I can not accept that E/W should be punished for this. That is just unfair, and under no circumstances I can accept that Law 31B should be applied and N/S could benefit from that.

So I ruled…

North (The south player) must accept the opening bid, because he did not follow law 7A propoerly. and then the bidding continued normally.

Why?

1. There is no rectification of not following 7A in the laws.
2. We have law 12A1 to help us, but…
Law 12A1 allows TD only to adjust score.
3. I think the lawmakers forgot to allow the TD to use some other methods when irregularity happens.

That could be law 12D. Hedline could be…

D. Restore justice when the laws gives the offending side undeserved advantage.
July 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion, there is no question of UI by the 2-3 minutes thinking at trick 1. Did South use the UI ? Yes. So we adjust the score.
March 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I forgot to mention. Teams tournament. IMP's
Feb. 1, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was the TD. What is the correct ruling here ?

1. Did South mishear the explaination? Was a little asleep?

2. Did West misbid his explaination? thougtht he said majors but accidently said minors?

3. Does the existence of convention card by E/W let South be more responisbile to check it?

4. The TD has no chance to find out what happened about the explainations.

So what is the correct ruling?

I decided that the board was unplayable. No score to both sides.

An other option was to give split score. E/W -1370 (6 diamonds 12 tricks) and N/S -100 (7 diamonds 12 tricks)

Some here say that south should figure himself out that he got wrong explaintion (or heard wrong) so 100 E/W to both sides.

More options ?
March 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner was sure not a TD. Just a pickup partner from Ireland. He was not willing to start a wild fight with East and decided to give East 1 extra trick, so we could start playing the last round. - And I understood that well.
Feb. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no problem for letting N/S have 10 tricks. But do we belive that law 23 should be used? For myself as dummy, I had no imaginaton “that this could well damage the non-offending side” And the same for declarer. So, how far should TD's go to using this law?
Feb. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I had a 1 week vacation in Tenerife last week and I was dummy. I had a pick up partnership with a wonderful Irish player. It was the second last round.

When East “overruffed” my partner's spade and played heart, East became furious. This was nothing but N/S fault and East's voice dominated the playing area.

My partner did absolutely the right thing. He stopped the shouting by giving the defence 3 tricks and started the last round.

Well now, what is the right ruling ?

PP is out of the question. If it were, then TD's would be giving PP every day all the year around for tiny mistakes.

If we are going to use Law 23 because violation of 41D, Then so be it, but…
now we come to law 12c1b.

Is it a serious error to forget what the trump suit is ? Yes it is. No matter what. (my opinion).

So if we want to punish N/S for not placing the hearts on it's right spot, then we should give a split score.

N/S = 420 = Average- score. Law 41D and 23.
E/W = 450 = Bad score. Law 12c1b.
Feb. 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have no PASS card in my bidding box
Dec. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For east, the knowledge of the majors behind in the south hand, certanly took away his possiblilty to bid 2. I will never allow N/S get away with this misinformation. East was sure damaged. Then N/S can try to get redress by an appeal committie.
And remember. East has 100% right to get the correct meaning of the double.
Nov. 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is no question about Misinformation. And there is no argument about that West would have bid 1NT anyway. BUT…
EAST was damaged because of the misinformation. He would sure have bid stayman over 1NT. I rule 2 or 2. 9 tricks for E/W. The play of 1NT by west has no concerne in this case.
Nov. 15, 2016
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top