Join Bridge Winners
BIT Ruling and Aftermath

This article is a follow-up to the poll posted earlier.

West
A
AQ1086
J10875
95
North
Q53
2
K963
KJ863
East
108764
J3
42
A1074
South
KJ92
K9754
AQ
Q2
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
P
1NT
P
2NT
P
P
P
D
2NT North
NS: 0 EW: 0

North, who also happened to be the director, made 8 tricks on a spade lead. When EW protested the pass over 2N, North admitted to taking a conservative view, citing EW's good defense as the reason. The BIT was not contested. Upon asking North for a formal ruling as the director, EW were informed that the result stands. EW stated that they would like to appeal the ruling, which elicited a "Go right ahead" response.

The director did not consult any players after the game to constitute an appeals committee. EW reported the deal to the club recorder, who conducted a poll (not the one linked here) and suggested a score adjustment to the director. No score adjustment was made.

Does your club have any policies on rulings involving a playing director that address conflict of interest (perceived or otherwise)?

50 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top