[weejonnie]

---

2NT wasn't alerted at the time, however when 3NT was taken out to 4♦ West did alert as showing both minor suits. South had passed so I asked South if he wanted to change his pass (which was declined). I also tried to explain the problem to East (probably wrongly ) about taking advantage of UI and asked to be called back if NS were damaged.

5♠* went off 2 only and South explained that since he felt 5♦ would make (it is unbeatable), he would sacrifice at the favourable vulnerability. (5♠ can go 4 off on correct defence but that is probably irrelevant).

I am polling the East hand on Bridgewinners - the problem is that the players there are much better than the East at the table (with all due respect to her).

Assuming that the 4♦ call is disallowed (one of the better players in the club felt that 3NT should be passed), should NS be awarded the score for 3NT - 3 (which is what would almost certainly happen - as North has 6 spades and an outside Ace, the Spade would be led, killing West's K8, or should they keep the 5♠* - 2 (even though it was a relatively successful call)

[Pig Trader]

Partner hasn't been able to double 5♦ so there seems to be a good chance it is making. The TNT seems to be about 18 so if 5♦ is making, we may be 4 off in 5♠. I would seriously consider bidding 5♠ though, as I could be out on the TNT.

Is 5♠ gambling? I think probably not, but it doesn't actually matter on this occasion.

Law 12C1e says

"If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then ...."

This condition hasn't been met because even if we judge 5♠ to be gambling, then the non-offending side has not contributed to its own damage. The NOS has actually reduced its damage.

[weejonnie]

Interesting points - thanks. Presumably if 5♠* had gone for 800 then the ruling might well have been different.

Anyway - I ruled 3NT -3 by East.

---

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-30, 05:15, said:

Anyway - I ruled 3NT -3 by East.

I agree with your ruling. Nothing that happened after the infraction of the 4D bid is remotely wild or gambling. I guess East was fairly inexperienced or she would have passed 3NT, but I would tell her she was close to PP territory. I don't think explaining UI to East is wrong (you are supposed to relate all relevant parts to a ruling), and your approach seems fine.

[blackshoe]

The problem with "close to PP territory" is that East has failed to do what she "must" do (carefully avoid taking advantage of UI) and the laws say that this is "a serious matter indeed", more so than failure to do what she "shall" do, which would incur a PP more often than not.

I would explain to the table what AI is, that anything that is not AI is UI, that a player who has received UI from partner should carefully avoid taking advantage of it, or if received from another source, call the director and explain what she's received and from where. Then I would explain that because this is "a serious matter indeed", a player who violates the law here should almost always get a PP and that PP would, in England, normally be 10% of a top. Then I would say "So here's your PP: don't make this mistake again". I would record the ruling in my notebook. Next time, she gets a MP penalty.

Afterthought: the "I" in UI or AI refers to information about the deal being played, in particular, if it comes from partner, about his hand. Or about a deal yet to be played, but that's usually not from partner, but from another source. That should be included in the TD's explanation.

[peterb001]

lamford, on 2017-August-30, 07:10, said:

I guess East was fairly inexperienced or she would have passed 3NT, but I would tell her she was close to PP territory.

I know a number of not so strong club players who I believe would take out 3NT into 4D on the East hand, even if the 2NT was correctly alerted as unusual, on the grounds that they really want to play in a minor ('telling the same story twice', as a bridge writer once called it). It's not clear what West originally thought the 2NT meant, and whether that changed following the 4D bid. Certainly if expecting a minor 2 suiter, 3NT is a poor bid unless West erroneously believes they will be playing the contract (having made the first 'genuine' NT bid), and if this was the case, then it's a fair gamble.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-29, 16:10, said:

---

2NT wasn't alerted at the time

What's the jurisdiction? Unusual 2NT is not alertable in ACBL.

[barmar]

peterb001, on 2017-August-30, 18:21, said:

I know a number of not so strong club players who I believe would take out 3NT into 4D on the East hand, even if the 2NT was correctly alerted as unusual, on the grounds that they really want to play in a minor ('telling the same story twice', as a bridge writer once called it). It's not clear what West originally thought the 2NT meant, and whether that changed following the 4D bid. Certainly if expecting a minor 2 suiter, 3NT is a poor bid unless West erroneously believes they will be playing the contract (having made the first 'genuine' NT bid), and if this was the case, then it's a fair gamble.

Even though they might take it out even when properly alerted, the UI changes things so that their normal action may be prohibited. As long as there are a significant number of peers who consider passing, and some who would actually choose it, passing is an LA; if taking out is demonstrably suggested by the UI, they're required to pass.

If few of their peers would consider passing, or none would actually choose it, then taking out is the only LA and the UI becomes irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-August-30, 18:48, said:

What's the jurisdiction? Unusual 2NT is not alertable in ACBL.

Weejonnie's in England.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-30, 20:15, said:

Weejonnie's in England.

I know, but we like people to say it clearly -- often it's put into the thread subtitle.