UI from withdrawn Stop card
We had an incident last night with a withdrawn stop card. (Dealer N, NV vs NV). The players are average club players (EBU 8)
The auction went
1D P 1S 4C
4S P P P
Before 1S was bid, a stop card was produced, and then withdrawn. A 2S bid would have been good hand with a good suit (slam interest). According to the Blue Book (3M2) UI is available to partner when a stop card is withdrawn. I attach a copy of the hands. I was called once play had finished. My initial ruling at the end of the evening was that there was UI, and the call chosen may have been influenced by this, but the offending side did not gain from this, so the result stood.
(At my table, the 1st 4 calls were the same, but North rebid 4H, and South bid 4S which ended the auction.)
The only other comment was that after the immediate 4S bid, East may be more tempted to bid 5C on the expectation that West is short in spades.
I would appreciate your views, and what action should be taken. Thanks in anticipation.
Peter
Comments
I think you are right not to adjust, because they will end up in 4S whatever North does, but I think that North's bid of 4S shows such a brazen disregard for his UI obligations that I would at least give him a firm warning and perhaps a procedural penalty.
+1
As well as a warning (lecture?), the players should be encouraged to call the TD when there is a non-jump stop-bid, so the TD can explain the law and the UI restrictions - before the offenders are in a position to use UI.
If you don't give North a procedural penalty for raising to game with a doubleton spade and a minimum then when will you do so? To hear the explanation of why 4S was bid would be "interesting." I agree that all roads lead to 4S anyway. 5C, if found would lead to 300 or 500.
I was thinking we would first need to check that North had these obligations properly explained to him and that he understood them.
Unfortunately I was only called once they had finished playing the hand.
Does North need to understand? Better if he does, I guess, but ignorance is no defence
Not a complete defence. I think North's degree of understanding is relevant to whether they merit a procedural penalty or not. It's not really relevant to whether we adjust the score.
It might be relevant to the size of the PP but my point was this is so gross that a penalty ought to be imposed.