[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.

[mycroft]

So, raise that.

I know, I'm parroting my colleague from across the water, but "every MI case is a UI case" is something that not everyone understands, including unfortunately some directors (hopefully only at the club level). If you happen to hit one, just, politely, ask "and isn't correcting to the known fit standard with 3-card support?" If they then argue that with a pancake flat 15 passing 3NT is normal - well, you know what you've got there (just get it right when you're the director). But maybe they were just so focussed on "they told you the wrong thing, but you were never bidding" that they didn't see it, in which case your question should light the lamp.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-May-13, 12:50, said:

And the UI from South? And the LA of North?

South is unlikely to know about UI, North simply stated that he did not provide any UI.
As far as the Director is concerned, I am the problem, it's a friendly game and no need to mention UI and LA

pescetom, on 2026-May-13, 12:50, said:

Could you not appeal the decision?

No, well maybe to the ACBL(I don't know) but it won't help to clean up the game.

pescetom, on 2026-May-13, 12:50, said:

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).

This is club bridge, it is a social game with a belief that if the Laws were enforced, players would not come back. I'm told not to take it so seriously.

pescetom, on 2026-May-13, 12:50, said:

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

Of course but only a few think that way and are willing to speak up. The ACBL discipline online infractions but turn a blind eye to infractions at the table, it makes no sense to me. What we are seeing are some clubs running non sanctioned games so that those people caught online can still play at the club. I believe players with (online) suspensions can be allowed to play at Clubs if the membership approve, they are not eligible for Masterpoint awards.

pescetom, on 2026-May-13, 12:50, said:

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.

I can play plenty of officially non sanctioned bridge here, for a fraction of the cost and zero Law stress. The biggest game in town is non sanctioned.
I'm playing better online Bridge with and against good players. I miss the tournaments but low level tournament bridge is not significantly different to Club Bridge, as you'd expect as it's the same players.
Big events require travel, USA if off the itinerary and its very costly.

I can't fight it but I don't need to support it. I'll play for fun and play seriously when and where I can.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-May-13, 18:23, said:

This is club bridge, it is a social game with a belief that if the Laws were enforced, players would not come back. I'm told not to take it so seriously.

That is the pushback I get at regional and club level too, but I ignore it and enforce the laws all the same. If it comes to the crunch I won't back down: nobody forced me to become a Director, I did it precisely to be able to clean up the club game (which was truly sickening at the time).

Luckily however bridge here is considered a sport (however much that may appall the BW crowd) and so an appeal even at club level is taken seriously. Ironically, while an appeal at regional or national level will often be decided by Director in chief of the tournament, an appeal at club level goes straight to national level judges who are on the ball. The partnership have to give immediate written notice of intention to appeal and at that point any Director with a bit of sense would change his mind rather go to appeal with a weak case and see his career smudged.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-May-14, 02:29, said:

That is the pushback I get at regional and club level too, but I ignore it and enforce the laws all the same. If it comes to the crunch I won't back down: nobody forced me to become a Director, I did it precisely to be able to clean up the club game (which was truly sickening at the time).

Luckily however bridge here is considered a sport (however much that may appall the BW crowd) and so an appeal even at club level is taken seriously. Ironically, while an appeal at regional or national level will often be decided by Director in chief of the tournament, an appeal at club level goes straight to national level judges who are on the ball. The partnership have to give immediate written notice of intention to appeal and at that point any Director with a bit of sense would change his mind rather go to appeal with a weak case and see his career smudged.

Very interesting. We have a method to report players bad behaviour but no process to appeal rulings at a club level afaik.

Is there a penalty to club players who make an Appeal Without Merit?

Are Club Directors also club owners, are Directors hired by club owners paid accordingly?

Do Club Directors have a hot line to the FIGB for assistance with rulings?

If a club receives too many successful Appeals is there any action taken by the FIGB?

How does this affect the players who haven't/can't/won't learn the rules?

Ironically, I found this while searching for ACBL appeals committee,

"The punishment for a couple sitting with each other in their home, talking to each other during the game (which is clearly wrong) needs to fit the crime committed." and goes on to say
"Many of them have been members of the ACBL for many decades and before online bridge, most would not even think about setting up an illegal system of communication when entering a bridge club."
I'd love to know where the guys who wrote this play?


Do you have a link to FIGB appeal cases?

[pescetom]

>>Is there a penalty to club players who make an Appeal Without Merit?
Good question, which I raised this year. There was a requirement for a cash deposit which you could lose, but it seems to have been forgotten in recent years. I think it is due.

>>Are Club Directors also club owners, are Directors hired by club owners paid accordingly?
"Clubs" are not formally clubs and are certainly not "owned".
They are no-profit sporting associations which are affiliated to one or more Olympic sports (as defined by IOC and including bridge and chess).
The members of the association vote a guiding committee and a President, every Olympic cycle of 4 years.
If the association is affiliated only to the FIGB then all members will be members of the FIGB.
Any member of the FIGB can become a licensed Director by undergoing training and passing written and at-table exams.
Club Presidents pay a licensed Director (usually one of their own members) to run tournaments.

>>Do Club Directors have a hot line to the FIGB for assistance with rulings?
Licensed Directors should not usually need assistance, but they will of course know some more senior licensed Director to call in case of need.
Small clubs and/or very small local games may have a non-licensed Director with a hot line for assistance.

>>If a club receives too many successful Appeals is there any action taken by the FIGB?
I assume you mean if too many decisions by Director X are successfully appealed.
It simply doesn't happen because the number of such Appeals is very low, let alone per Director or club, and few of those succeed.
But even one successful appeal will have direct or indirect consequences, a Director always has people looking over his shoulder.

>>How does this affect the players who haven't/can't/won't learn the rules?
Well if they really believe the Director who is calling them out is wrong, they have a process to prove it, and I at least will point it out to them.
If they back down from that then it's harder for them to convince newer players that not learning the rules is the way to go.


>>Do you have a link to FIGB appeal cases?
No there isn't one, which is no surprise if you know European privacy laws.
It's already a miracle that disciplinary sentences remain online (even a conviction for theft gets wiped off internet in a few years, to give you an idea).