vigfus

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7hkt52daq2cqt8&w=sqj63h8dkjt4ca943&n=sa852ha743d97cj76&e=s94hqj96d8653ck52&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1n(15-17)2s(4%20spades%20%26%205%20card%20minor)d(Genereal%20values)r(Decent%20hand)2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] Teams. IMP's North is Anita Sinclair South is Zia Mahmood East is Thor Erik Hoftaniska West is Thomas Charlsen 1NT = 15-17 2♠ =4 spades and 5 card minor Dbl = Not penalty. General values Rdbl= Decent hand. 2NT = Zia's argument. He did not want to play in 2 spades redoubled, assuming "decent hand" had something to do with spade support. Opening lead is Jack of diamonds. Contract is 3NT. 8 tricks. 100 EW I was called when the opening lead of Jack of Diamonds is faced and dummy is put down. My ruling was... 2sp redoubled. 6 tricks. 600 NS Of course the ruling was appealed. That part of the story comes on tuesday.

Law 75B. Wrong Explaination. No question about that. Law 16B. Extraneous Information from partner. No question about that. There are two questions to be answered. 1. Was N/S damaged because of Wrong Explaination or Unauthorzed Information? 2. Did E/W use Unauthorzed Information? The answer to both those questinons is YES. For south having right information about 2♣ he would have passed that bid. That was South's damage. So is pass Logical Alternative for West when it comes to him to bid on 2♣ doubled? Yes. Partner can easily hold 1-2-4-6 I rule 2♣ doubled West (Not redoubled) 4 tricks. -800 ( Well some would rule 5 tricks, -500 )

here is the board

Pairs MP West started the bidding with PASS. Out of turn. North did not accept it, so the pass was withdrawn according to Law 30A. East had a problem, knowing his partner had to pass the next time it was his turn, so East bid 3NT. The opening lead was ♥10. 11 tricks. 85% score. 4♠, making 5 gave 45% score. L30A says that TD can use L23 to adjust score when Pass out of turn happens. Is this one of the cases to do so ? Let us first look at East's situation. He has no good choice, and makes a gambling 3NT bid and gets very lucky when the opening lead is not ♣. Well of course N/S were unlucky not finding the right opening lead. I ruled that score stands. It is allowed to make crazy bids and get lucky. But when should law 23 be used when 30A happens ? Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson[hv=pc=n&s=sj54ht93dq83ckj87&w=sat872hqjd9762ca4&n=s93hk875dj54cq532&e=skq6ha642daktct96&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3nppp]399|300[/hv]

If E/W had defeted 5♠, then of course the score would have been 500. The same score to both sides

All players are experts. 1♣ is strong. North meant 2NT as any 7 card suit with two honours of the top 3. South gave alert on North's bid, and explained lenght and strength the same way, but the suit is CLUBS. East talked to me about this board and felt N/S had used unauthorised information. I talked to two experts and asked then what they would bid on Norths cards when partner bids 5♣. One raised to 6♣, the other felt he could not raise to 6♣. Neither of them thought about bidding 5♠ to play. I ruled split score. N/S = 5♣ -500 (Law 16.B) E/W = 5♠ -650 (Law 12.C.1.b) N/S appealed. The Appeal committie confirmed my ruling.[hv=pc=n&s=sa2hakq2dat43ct63&w=sq75hjt6d98765cqj&n=skjt98643h8djc852&e=sh97543dkq2cak974&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp2np5cp5sppp]399|300|East started the defence with AK of clubs. At trick 3, he lead diamond king, and West did not get his ruff. 11 tricks[/hv]

What is going on in South's mind ? Well we do not know. But we try to figure out. I think South has miscounted the clubs, thinking if opp's follow AKQ, then clubs break. In that case I allow the claim. 13 tricks.

13 tricks. Here is so obvious mistake in explaination that there can be NO JUSTICE in not allowing 13 tricks. I sure allow South to see the ♣Jack dropping.

"I had not looked at my precise spade holding before asking" replied South. I do not believe this statement. Not at all. With the ♠Jack lead, South knew exactly what was going on. Both the questions were intended to mislead East.

South is very unethical. His questions have no purpose except to mislead East. Law 73D2 applies here. My ruling is. N/S = 11 tricks Law 23 E/W = 50% 11 tricks, 50% 12 tricks (based on if South just played ♠Ace on trick 1, and small spade on trick 2 without any questioning.) Law 23 and 12C

Table score stands for E/W Law 12.C.1.b. The double is nonsense. It gives the opps to run into 6NT easily, and disclousures the position of ♥J for declarer in 6NT. (If N/S have 8 heart fit.) For N/S the score is 6♣ not doubled.

Hello everyone. Vigfus Palsson here. The TD who was in charge in this case. I Think the discussion has has come to an end here. Ceasefire now ???

My apologies for not recording the table resluts. 3 NT went 3 down. -300. The other table was 3♠ just made. 140 EW = 10 IMP's to the NS team. The MI was not only for West. East also knew what the alert and 3♥ bid meant. There is no way East would PASS the double of 3♥ by West which is takeout. West almost certanly knew that N/S had a misunderstanding, but West also knew that his partner had not that knowledge.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj4hj742d96ca743&w=sat6hakqtdackj952&n=s872h96dkqjt2cq106&e=sq953h853d87543c8&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1c2dp3h3nppp]399|300[/hv] 1♣ Natural. 2♦ South alerted after having had a little thought. It is obvious that South thought North had Majors At West's turn to bid, Double would have been take-out. Pass is not forcing. I Asked 3 strong players what they would have bid with West's cards. They did not give same answers, but all were certain that N/S had a misunderstanding, 2♦ for Majors are common in Iceland. N/S Convention card showed that 2♦ bid was weak in ♦ West did not ask N/S about the bidding. Based on the Alert and the 3♥ bid, West knew what was going on in South's mind and would have got the explainatin of Majors on the 2♦ bid if he had asked. I did not find it strange that West did not ask about the N/S bidding, and therefore West did not loose any rights by not asking. Ruling... There is no way to determine what the contract would have been and result, if the 2♦ had been explained correctly. I ruled 3 IMP's to E/W team based on Law 75B and 12C2a and 12C2b. N/S appealed. The Appeal committie confirmed the ruling.

Pass is not LA Next bid ?

Hello Everyone. I have many times tried to read upload Law 75 to players at the table when irregularity has occured. Unfortunaetly when I do, I can not read the direct text of the law because it is explaining actual case in A,B,C. Also, I feel that Law 75 is not clear enough when describing what to do and why. BTW. I am almost sure about how to rule as the Law wants the TD's to give right rulings. Here I have made some enhanchments to Law 75 (With help from other Major TD), and I would be very pleased to hear yours opinions about Law 75 changes. Greetings Vigfus Palsson. Iceland. ------------------------- LAW 75: MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL When a player gets information from partner’s explanation of his call, which is not as he meant it, the knowledge of that is “Unauthorised information” (see Law 16A). The player must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score. When mistaken explanation results in damage to opponents, the Director shall award an adjusted score. The Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Here is a case to explain this Law. North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2 ♦, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West’s inquiry, that South’s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. In this case misleading explanation has been given to the opponents. The responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are to minimize the damage caused. A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North’s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2 ♦ bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is “unauthorized information”, so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South’s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. B. Mistaken Explanation The actual partnership agreement is that 2 ♦is a natural signoff. The mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement. Correct time to call the Director If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues. After the final pass. If South becomes declarer or dummy, he should call Director before the opening lead is faced, and volunteer a correction of the explanation of 2 ♦, and Law 21B1a may apply. After the final pass. If South becomes a defender he must say nothing until the end of play as any comment will alert his partner to the problem during the play. At the end of the hand he must call the Director and explain the problem. C. Mistaken Call The partnership agreement is as explained. 2 ♦ is strong and artificial. The mistake was in South’s call. There is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement. They have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director)

South's 2♣ bid is strong (South's hand is typical) N/S are Average players, not regular partnership. West's 2NT bid is not alerted. North asks about the meaning and East describes it as strong. (Well... many HCP's in this deck.) After bidding is over, and before North makes his opening lead, west corrects his partners explaination, and tells he meant his call as minors. North calls TD, not happy. North said he would have bid othervise with correct explaination of wests 2NT call. Law 21B1a does not allow TD to offer North the possibility to change his call. I decided I could not offer South to change his call, because now he knows partner has some good cards. I asked players to finish the board. Lead was 7♥ and 12 tricks. N/S got wrong explaination which is violation of law 75B. Now TD must decide that if North himself should realize that something is wrong about the opp's bidding, and continue to 6. Well North did not, but called TD at once when he got the right explaination. If TD decides that North should go to 6♠, then the score is 4♠, +480 If TD decides that the wrong explaination damaged N/S, then the score is 6♠, +980 I ruled 6♠ +980 Greetings, Vigfus Palsson[hv=pc=n&s=saqt87hakdq52caq3&w=skjh7dj9876ckjt86&n=s96542hqj54daktc9&e=s3ht98632d43c7542&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2c(Something%20strong)2n(Strong)d3h3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

no question about this. 10 tricks There is no justice using law 11 here.

Perhaps the bridge laws should give the TD's yellow or red cards. I would not give East red card, but defenetly yellow card.

There must be very strong evidence that south knew that north was messing upp things, to rule his 3♦ bid amber or red. South's 3♥ bid is very logical. He had not yet told his partner which was his major. TD's have to be careful not to destroy the fun of bridge in situations like that. Has psycing been banned in poker ?

Law 16C. E/W can easily talk about their hands any time within those 90 minutes. I am not saying they will do so, but they have an oppourtunity to do so. That is why I rule 60% to E/W and 60% to the N/S which can not play the board against the right opp's 90 minutes later. The sleeping N/S will not get procedural penalty.

Table score stands East is not obliged to hold some specific cards or length in spades.

Q1. It looks so. But I do not like the ethics of that pair. ( I have seen such behaviour in real life as TD ) Q2. I would rule that E/W get 1 trick. BTW. East did not have a chance to play to the trick. Q3. 1 trick again. There is no point to ask declarer what he would have done if West plays low heart. A lot of players would play the ♥9. Q4. If they call within 30 minutes from the end of the session, then I have to find the opp's, that evening or the day after. Find if the opp's agree about what happened and make a ruling.

If this is the whole truth about what happend at the table, then the TD is right, and AC wrong.

♠5 is played.