[tzigesh]

* - not alerted, NS play Michaels in defense so this 2♦ was meant like real 2♠ Michaels, but with possibility to stay in 2♥ if partner is weak. N meant to bid Michaels, S understood overcall in diamonds, because 1♦ was only better minor...

After the auction, W asked what was 2♦, and S responded that it was diamonds, not Michaels. Maybe N should of empty the S seat and and ask N what it was, or this should me made by N and then explain to the opponents what he meant by 2♦ bid. But with his hand (and the dummy-s hand) E has an idea what it was 2♦ bid (especially after the lead and the ♦Q holding). However, lead was singleton ♦, small from the dummy, and Q♦ taken by S. S now returns (singleton) ♥, and declarer takes ♥A, making 3 round of spades, and playing K of diamonds. When S took A♦, W starts repeatedly yelling at S, calling him a cheater, calling him a liar, telling to him and his partner that they cheat all the time, behaving like a mad man for much more than a few seconds. That all happened when he is set to go down one because at this point the ♣ return is inevitable.
S could not believe what was happening on the table, but instead of stopping the play and calling TD (we played small club tournament, 4 tables, no TD), he now doesn’t see anything because of the yelling, didn't see that his partner is void in ♦ because of this mad man and returns ♦ instead of inevitable ♣. Now W instantly calmed down because he now sees 2♣ discards on 2 high ♦ making the contract, after this huge verbal excess.

Is it possible to continue with the play after such an excess?

What to do with this board? What to do with this mad man?

Thanks for your opinions.

[blackshoe]

In North America we have a "zero tolerance" policy which requires a disciplinary penalty (DP) of 25% of a top (the normal penalty in this jurisdiction) for a first offense for each player who has committed a violation of the policy (this would seem to be only West in this case). Even without that, a DP could be awarded because this behavior is a violation of Law 74A2 and is prejudicial to good order and discipline (Law 91). That I would do at minimum. However, calling people cheats is so far over the top that I would seriously consider an ethics hearing for West. You would have to research your jurisdiction's procedures for such hearings. If no procedures are in place, club management should probably handle it. The result of such hearing could be anything from a letter of reprimand to expulsion from the club (or possibly from the National Bridge Organization if the NBO handles the hearing, though expulsion from the NBO seems unlikely under these circumstances). Note also that under Law 91 the director can suspend the player for the rest of the night (he plays no more that night) or, with the concurrence of club management, for a longer period. We had a player here who, several years ago, was suspended from playing at the club for 30 days for arguing (loudly and continually) with the director.

There is no direct rectification in the laws for distractions having caused a player to misplay the hand, but Law 12A1 gives the director the power to "award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." So you could award an assigned adjusted score of 4♠ down one, or in jurisdictions outside of North America perhaps some weighted score.

I do not think there is sufficient justification to cancel the board.

I would commend to your club Law 80B2{a}: "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include appointment of the Director. If there is no appointed Director, the players should designate a person to perform his functions". Hopefully, that would not have been West.

[Zelandakh]

In addition to the verbal abuse covered by Ed, the TD should perhaps also investigate a possible misuse of UI. When South took the appropriate alert path for a natural 2♦ did North show any sign of surprise or alarm? It seems unusual that South did not raise here and this must surely be a LA.

In answer to the other points, North is not allowed to correct the explanation of 2♦ until after the end of the hand. If they realise 100% that the explanation is actually correct and they have misbid there is actually no obligation to correct it at all although I feel personally it is only polite to do so, since such situations often lead to TD rulings.

In any case there is a lot going on here and there may or may not be a ruling against N-S but there definitely should be a penalty against E-W, assuming the facts are as presented.