[jillybean]

1nt (2♣*) 2♥** (P)
2♠ (P) 3NT all pass

2♣. alert. clubs and major
2♥ announced as a transfer. 2♥ bidder communicates to partner that heart bid was not actually a transfer

At the end of the hand you are called to the table, 2♣ bidder claims they have been damaged.
Convention card shows 'systems on over 2♣'

What do you do?

---

[Gerardo]

I'd say North has a logical alternative untainted by the unauthorized information.
And that is 4♠.

[pescetom]

 Gerardo, on 2026-May-12, 03:56, said:

I'd say North has a logical alternative untainted by the unauthorized information.
And that is 4♠.

I agree.

Clear penalty to South.
It's harder to evaluate a penalty to North, especially if he bid 2S after the illegal communication rather than before (not clear in OP). Had he wanted to exploit the UI it makes more sense to bid 4H than to pass 3NT. Maybe he just panicked and wanted to avoid consequences.


In any case we can adjust if necessary.

Can we have the traveller and/or diagram please?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-May-12, 06:20, said:

I agree.

Clear penalty to South.
It's harder to evaluate a penalty to North, especially if he bid 2S after the illegal communication rather than before (not clear in OP). Had he wanted to exploit the UI it makes more sense to bid 4H than to pass 3NT. Maybe he just panicked and wanted to avoid consequences.


In any case we can adjust if necessary.

Can we have the traveller and/or diagram please?

"spades", 2♠ bidding card, and UI all happened simultaneously.

---

[pescetom]

Thanks.


I assume West is not very bright. Even so that is still rather odd, he would surely want to know what South is showing before deciding his call, so North should have had ample time to announce. Maybe North already knew there was no real agreement and was hoping West would ask so that South would have a chance to "innocently" explain his call.

East should have called the Director rather than passing, in any case.

[mycroft]

It would not be difficult to argue in the bar that "trying for 9 instead of 10 with a 3343 minimum" was a rational decision. And without UI, sure, you get to try to make that argument to partner when it turns out to be wrong.

But it's day 3 where we tell players "play in the 8-card major fit, pass only when you only have 2 spades". As I said, as you get more experienced, you can start to let your expertise override first-day teachings. But it's day one teaching for a reason - it's rarely wrong.

When your partner tells you, other ways than the bids they make, that this time it's right - "you don't get to be brilliant".

Did North "carefully avoid" using the information? Clearly no. Even if the polls tell me that this hand pass is the right bid (which I absolutely do not expect), this is a violation of 73B.

But I bet that the polls are going to tell me "4♠. But you're asking me this question, so probably this time passing 3NT is right. I'd think about it, but wouldn't do it." In which case, assigning a score is going to be interesting. Some (small) fraction of 4♠ undoubled, some (equally small) fraction of 4♠ doubled, some fraction of 5♥ doubled (after South panics on the double), some fraction of 5♦ doubled or undoubled (which is clearly their best spot after 4♠, but can they get there and stop?)

I'd like to hear the arguments, though. Depending on North and South's experience, this is likely to be a great education for them; or alternatively a "here's a quarter board that, if you're smart, will imply that we're now watching carefully for 'expert judgement'." But the whole action by N-S feels like "newer players that didn't get a Proprieties lesson with their bridge lessons" and we'll protect E-W and hope the education stops the "next time".

[mycroft]

Speaking of "the bar", this would be a great hand to poll North on at the bar a month or so from now, especially if there's any "expert judgement" today...

[pescetom]

I agree with almost all of that (maybe just 4S 50% doubled will be enough), but you fail to mention the implications of East's two suited overcall for NS (and W). Everyone who is past day 3 should also be capable of figuring out at least after the UI (and quite possibly before) that has both black suits. If so, then West is either asleep or playing games, South was brazen or foolish risking 3NT rather than 3C or whatever and NS should have some agreement about who stops clubs here. Not something that North can discuss at the bar without looking foolish, apart from the inherent flaws of the 9 tricks argument.

[jillybean]

FWIW
South is an up and coming player. They obviously forgot that their card says "systems on over X2♣" and of course when North makes the announcement, their facial expression told the story.
They wouldn't know not to react, no one has mentioned UI or anything like that, it's a nice game.

North is a long time player, experienced in all aspects of the game.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2026-May-12, 10:06, said:

It would not be difficult to argue in the bar that "trying for 9 instead of 10 with a 3343 minimum" was a rational decision. And without UI, sure, you get to try to make that argument to partner when it turns out to be wrong.

Passing 3NT and 4♠ are both logical alternatives (4♥ is ruled out because that's blatantly using the UI). Absent UI, you're allow to use judgement to decide what to do in this case with no ruffing values. But the UI changes things: the UI suggests that Pass will be more successful (making or just down 1 versus down several), so Law 16 says you may not choose it.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-May-12, 12:19, said:

FWIW
South is an up and coming player. They obviously forgot that their card says "systems on over X2♣" and of course when North makes the announcement, their facial expression told the story.
They wouldn't know not to react, no one has mentioned UI or anything like that, it's a nice game.

North is a long time player, experienced in all aspects of the game.

Try to save South then, but starting with a penalty

[to hell with it's a nice game: these are the same people who get nervous when I ask *them* to explain my double to my beginner partner, or who overcall 1NT oh sorry 1S and just happen to have 16 HCP]

[jillybean]

So, you can guess the outcome. Result stands, I was given the correct information, it's a misbid, south forgot their agreements.

In the meanwhile, I am avoiding bidding on in competitive auctions because my partner's tempo can be *&&^%% terrible.
Yep, the rules are for suckers and I'm done with playing sanctioned social bridge.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-May-12, 17:36, said:

So, you can guess the outcome. Result stands, I was given the correct information, it's a misbid, south forgot their agreements.

And the UI from South? And the LA of North?
Could you not appeal the decision?
Over here it would be overturned, unless the Director was brazen faced enough to deny the UI, or to insist that in his evaluation 4♠ was not an LA (in which case the ruling would stand, but he would probably be downgraded or suspended).

jillybean, on 2026-May-12, 17:36, said:

In the meanwhile, I am avoiding bidding on in competitive auctions because my partner's tempo can be *&&^%% terrible.

Which is what we need to do for the game to make sense.

jillybean, on 2026-May-12, 17:36, said:

Yep, the rules are for suckers and I'm done with playing sanctioned social bridge.

I too am tired of passing for a sucker/SB as a player and a quixotic/fanatic as a Director, but I don't see any alternative, except to give up bridge.
Just remember that it's far easier to convince South in time than it is to get anywhere with North.
Rust takes time to form, but will never become steel again.