This year’s Bridge tournament season is well under way.

The national open pairs tournament, sponsored by Marsovin, was won by David Olliver and Henri Gossett with an average of 56.88%.

Marie Farrugia and Albert Sacco had an excellent 66.25% in the last round and leapt from ninth position into second, finishing with an overall average of 54.06%.

Kathy Williams and Stanko Grammatikov were third, 53.75%.

The Malta Bridge Club open pairs tournament, sponsored by Farsons, was won by Nathalie Marlin and Graham Penney with an average score of 56.9%.

Irene Naudi and Joan Consiglio were second with 56.75% and Olliver and Gossett third with 56.67%.

The first Union Club event of the season was the teams tournament which was won by Farrugia, Sacco, Marlin and Anna Vella who scored 434vps.

Consiglio and Naudi, partnered by David Barron and Brigitte Krohn, were second with 418vps.

It was a close fight all the way between these two teams.

In fact, the runners-up started the last round of the five-session multiple teams tournament 2vps in front of the winners. In third position were Wendy Busuttil, Marielle Sa-lomone, Celia Portelli and Yvonne Muscat Inglott, 361vps.

Psyches are a hot potato on the local Bridge scene at the moment.

Since the start of this season last October, the arguments for and against such deviations have heated up among the players.

The rule book clearly allows such bids and it is not within the realm of the local authorities to stop them.

However, when it comes to the actual interpretation of what is written in the World Bridge Federation book of rules, opinions vary.

Upon being asked about a local incident involving psyches and deviations and how they apply vis-a-vis the rule of 18, world leading Bridge Director Ton Kooyman replied: “The subject you address is not so easy.

“We (the laws committee) gave NBOs and organisers more power (possibilities) to regulate the use of agreements. The question now is whether forbidding bids not complying with your rule of 18 fits in that power given.

“To be honest, I consider this law of 18 already as a rather lenient approach towards light openings.”

Leading world authorities of the game are having problems as to how to interpret this issue and some NBOs have taken the bull by the horns and applied the rule of 18 rigorously and without exception for club level Bridge.

Among these authorities are the Italian and Australian federations.

This following board from one of our recent local tournaments, may shed some light on the difficulties the playing director has trying to give a ruling where psyches are involved.

Imagine you are sitting West and the bidding goes 1C from South, presumably a pass from you, North bids 1H, partner bids 2D and South bids 2H. Your side is not vulnerable but your opponents are.

So, presumably you will now bid 3D. Either way, North now jumps to 4H. Partner and South pass and it is over to you.

Before you look at the full deal below, have a good look at the West hand again.

Think about the bidding and vulnerability and decide what action you would take after South passes 4 Hearts. Clearly your options are to pass, bid 5 Diamonds or double.

Make up your mind before you read further.

The White Book, which is a guide to help directors in their interpretation of the WBF rules, says: “If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it, then the TD will treat it as fielding.”

That in the game of Bridge is a very serious offence.

On this occasion, West chose to pass after South’s 4 Heart bid.

Surely at this vulnerability, this pass is at least dubious. So, should East West be penalised here?

Where North South damaged?

They were the only pair that did not bid an unmakeable 6 Hearts.

Yet 4 out of 5 pairs managed to make 12 tricks. So, how can the director decide whether there was damage? Here is the full deal.

Dealer South. North South Vulnerable (imps).

The difficulties the director faces are illustrated by this hand.

Since locally we always have a playing director and, normally, all those who are familiar enough with the rules to form an appeal committee are also playing, it is often im-possible for the event organisers to appoint an appeals committee where its members do not have a personal interest.

It is within that framework that the Malta Bridge Association must work and make a decision on this issue.