vigfus

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sak54h43dj943cq93&w=sqj10hj7652dk105c85&e=s98632hak9d62cj62&s=s7hq108daq87cak1074]399|300|Scoring: MP W...N....E...S.. P....P....P...1♣ P...1♠...P..1NT All Pass[/hv] Lead is 5♥. East cashes AK and plays more ♥. South plays small ♣ to the queen and plays ♦Jack. Easts is moving his cards in hand ( West and South say that East hesitated ). East has ♦6 and ♦2 at the most left side in the cards, and preventing south from seeing that East takes a card so far left in his hand, then Easts takes his cards together and moves 2 or 3 cards to his left, and then he puts ♦ into the trick. ( I forgot to ask if he put the 2 or 6 into the trick ). East denied that he had been thinking. South said that he was going to cash the ♦Ace if East would not cover, but when East began thinking, he changed his orginal plan. Souths comes to that conclution that East was thinking of what card to play on the Jack, and what else than the king ?. So South plays small diamond, and West cashes 3 tricks more, and plays ♠queen Now south has 8 top tricks, but he finesses for the ♦ ten in Easts hand (because of easts previous thinking ). 7 tricks. I ruled that E/W gets the score of 150 NS (1NT 9 tricks ). But what about South ? Does he deserve 150 ? I say no. Law 12C1B I really thinked of ruling 7 tricks, but I came to the conclution of weigted score. 90 =50% 150= 50%. Because south did not play well at trick 4, and did not count his 8 tricks at trick 7, and no reason to think that east has the ♦10 My ruling was appealed, and the AC changed the score for NS to 150, because of South's statement of cashing the ♦A for 9 tricks if East had not hesitated.

Thanks David. This board has gone thorugh much discussion here in Iceland, Some say 8 tricks because of east's apologize, Other say 9 tricks because east is misleading declarer. I think the correct ruling is 9 tricks. Law 12C1B does certanly not fit here, so no split score. A interesting question came up. What should TD do if declarer calls for TD after easts remark ?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skj109ha7dk985c972&w=s83h1095dq7632cq108&e=sq4h8643da104cakj6&s=sa7652hkqj2djc543]399|300|Scoring: 110 N/S W - N - E - S ------- 1♣ X 2♣ 2♠ All Pass[/hv] East cashes AK of ♣, Ace of ♦, and plays club to wests queen. Returns ♥and north cashes the Ace. Defence has had 4 tricks. Now easts says upload "Isn't it over ?", but immediaetly says "No - I am sorry" North is experienced player, East is not very experienced. North decides the only reason East made this remark, is that he does not have the ♠ queen, then plays spade to the ace and finesses the jack. 8 tricks. 110 N/S North calls TD and says that if that remark had not come, he would sure have played for spades 2-2 and made 9 tricks. My first thought was to let score stand because East apologized immediaetly, but after having asked for assistance, I decided to give N/S 9 tricks, but I was not happy about north's argument. North knows laws very well, he was both eating the cake and keeping the cake. Finessing for the ♠Queen and if that does not work, then call TD and get the 9th trick by ruling. Perhaps the correct ruling would have been 110 for N/S and -140 for E/W Please give me your opinion in this matter.

I would give E/W + 3 imps for that board. - Law 23 North used UI from partner. Law 16.B.1.a and 16.D.2 I would not try to get them back. Something is wrong about their ethics.

Law 16B takes care of this. His partner gets UI If his partner does this, and gains good sore, TD should give the opp's 60% and the guilty side perhaps 30%

When West alerted the 1NT bid as 10-14, there is no doubt that East did get UI. East was almost 100% sure that partner would pass the 2♥ response to the transfer, so he bid 3NT. Gambling. Easts late explaination of the 2♦ call, really stinks. I rule 2♥, 8 tricks ( perhaps 9 tricks )

Law 70.D.1. Clears it. If declarer is a beginner, I would give him 14 tricks, just to punish the Opp's for trying to get easy score against the beginners. (Behaviour like this, makes the beginners stop entering the tournaments, when they get treatment like this.) If declarer is not beginner, I would give him 13 tricks, (footnote 22)

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sjt52hd643ct87543&w=sa9hkt432dkqcaqj6&e=s7haj6djt8752ck92&s=skq8643hq9875da9c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South ..................2♣(1)..3♣(2) Double..Pass.Pass.3♠(3) Double All Pass 1. Multi. - Weak 2 in ♦ or... - Weak with both majors or... - Weak with both minors or... - Strong balanced 2. No alert. N/S had not discussed any defence over this kind of multi. 3. No alert. 10 tricks. 930 N/S I came to the table when playing was over. North said to me that they had not discussed defence against this kind of multi, and that is why he did not give Alert. I ruled, score stands, because multi bids are most of the time trying to make it difficult for the opponments to reach their best spot. I did not see any irregularity from North, not alerting South's 3♣ bid. E/W appealed because North did not Alert Souths bid, and South did not give any indication of some misunderstanding in bidding before opening lead. Appeal committies ruling. N/S are not playing the same system. E/W did not get a chance to bid based on knowledge of souths majors. North does not bid his hand, according to if South has clubs. South does not give any indication of misunderstanding after bidding ended. The committie gives weithted score. 50% 3NT E/W -690 ( ♣lead 9 50% 3♠ doulbed. N/S 930

Is this some trap ? Well declarer has at least 6 tricks. so I suggest -3

Table score stands. I do not understand at all West's argument of making PASS knowing North having weak 2 in hearts.

What is our ruling ? Do we adjust score based on law 73E ? - and then using law 73F to adjust score ? Well - I rule that table score stands. But what about the psyche ? I agree about it being Red. But what will the TD do about it ? What are his opintons ? 90A ? or give PP (e.g. 50% of top score ?)

My opinion of preemtive bids have been the same for many years. The main goal of preemtive bids is to make life difficult for the opponments. That goal is sure ok. But when the opponmenst manage to land safe in some contract, despite having been interupted with preemtive bids, I tend to have little sympathy for the preeemtive side when they call TD. In this case, it looks like the opposition does not know how to handle those preemtive bids, and guessing to stop in 4NT. Now the preemters call TD, because they feel that the opp's should go to high because of a BIT by the 4NT bidder. TD should ask himself, is the BIT UI, and if so, what kind of UI is here. Someone tell me what the UI is.

Hello David I was the TD here. I felt the 3NT bid was gambling, and that is why I gave E/W their actual result of that board. But about N/S. They misinformed E/W. Should they get away with that, although E/W made gambling bridge bid ? Let's look at it from another side. Let's assume E/W have defence aganinst the 2 ♦bid. e.g. takeout double, and it does not show ♦here which I am not sure about. Then E/W are certanly damaged of not being able to reach 2 ♠contract. Reasoning that, my ruling should be 9 tricks in spades for both sides. Another way to reach spade partscore can be... 1NT - 2♦ - Pass - 2♥ Pass - Pass - Double - pass 2♠ - All pass ( and West gambling partner having 4 ♠suit ) Is this perfect bidding sequence likely to happen, even at very experienced partnership ? My ruling here should also be 9 tricks in spades for both sides. Well it is easy to see perfect bidding sequence seeing all the cards. Btw. only 4 tables of 15 played in spade contract.

2♦ -3 is what I would rule. South had UI from his partners slow pass, That makes his double a good bet, either for takeout or penalty. Fast passing partner over 2♦, makes PASS by south sure an LA. 3 off is what declared made, He earned it.

Table score stands. South says that he is not sure what the 3♣ bid means. I believe that. I can not see what kind of UI south is getting from his partner's slow bid. Now we come to the last part. South was asked why he bid 3NT ? I believe him very well when he says he is always going for game contract. The later explaination makes little sense, and I ignore that part. South gambled for 3NT. That is OK.

I agree with the ruling of 3♣, passed out, and a few tricks off. 1. E/W had MI, by not alerting the 3♣ bid 2. South had UI, when his partner did not alert 3♣ 3. North realized that he had forgot the system, and raised to 4♠ N/S are the guilty side here.

Talble score stands. If I ask 10 icelandic players what to bid, at least 8 of them would bid 3♠ Pass is not an LA for west.

Now we have to consider partnership mutual understanding and table feeling. There is no questinon that long term partnership tends to make them know each other behaviour and how the partner reacts in many situations, and this is almost impossible to rule it as UI. Here is an example. East is an overbidder, West is an underbidder. They know that very well, but the opp's do not know that. The bidding goes. Opp's always passing. 1♣ - 1♠ - 3♠ - ? The 3♠ call has different meaning based on who made it. When the underbidder makes the 3♠ call, the overbidder knows his partner holds maximum for his bid. When the overbidder makes the 3♠ call, the underbidder knows his partner dose not hold maximum for his bid. So - what does TD do now ?

TD is perfectly right to allow reopening the bidding again. No question about that. And N/S use that oppurtunity to enter the bidding again and are punished for that. Table result sands.

I agree on the ruling, but I do not agree about the warning. Why ? What bid had west for game try other than 3♥ ? Well, he had NO OTHER BID.

Hello All HNY Score stands. There is not question there was UI and MI. But did that matter on this hand ? I say No. All players at the table know when the 5♦ call is made, there is some MI. There is NO way that west it going ot PASS the 5♣ bid ever. I am sure 99% of west players will not do that in this auction. I rule that 5♦ bid is an logical alternative on this board.

How experienced is the pair who opens 2♠, ranging 0-10 HCP's and 4+ spades? In my opinion, usually advanced+ at least. How experienced is the pair who makes a 2NT bid over weak 2 with 12 HCP's? In my opinion, usually advanced- or less, sure no expert. So now we come again to the first statement of mine about usage of weak preemtive bids. Those bids have the main purpose of giving the opps a difficult situation to deal with. That worked very well this time. LHO made a very dangerus bid of 2NT. AND his partner misunderstood his bid completly. So here we have a 2-0 in favour of making the opp's miserable. Of course we have UI here. But because of that, is it mandatory to rule that the 2NT bidder has to make some idiotic decision because of that ? I say NO And now we come to the final contrac of lucky 3NT. How can we justify some ruling to ensure that the opp's will have 3-0 because they had already 2-0 ? My main point of this that the TD should try to protect weak players against strong players in situation like this. The weaker players get enough bad boards, and will not be happy of unfair ruling (in their opinion) when they finally have good board against such preeemtive bids. And finally. I use the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007) for ruling.

The main purpose of weak 2 and weak 3 opening are used give the opps a difficult situation to deal with. That works often and the Weak opening bidders smile - they managed to make the opps do something wrong. Here we have a case where the opp's were very lucky to land on their feet. AND THE W2 OPENING SIDE IS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT. Score stands. No question about that.