Should we have asked for ruling

[iviehoff]

Full disclosure of methods is awkward unless you want quite a large piece of paper.

...

The other considerations are quite complicated so we wait to be asked.

...

One potential concern I had was that you might be randomly opening 1S on a certain bad hands some days but not other days, in effect having a a cover for systemic psyching. But your description seems to have suggested that is not the case.

 

The large sheet of paper issue is a problem, as Bluejak says. But it is more of a problem when it is a bid of a kind one does not routinely encounter, as I would have absolutely no idea what kind of hands you might or might not routinely open 2S with, on, say a 3-count.

[campboy]

Of course we have UI here. But because of that, is it mandatory to rule that the 2NT bidder has to make some idiotic decision because of that ? I say NO

Suppose the player had not heard the alert. What would he have done? Well, if they do not play transfers in response to NT overcalls he would probably have passed. So passing is hardly idiotic, and (again assuming they do not play transfers here) it is a logical alternative (but only for some pairs -- we need to know more about this pair's methods to decide).

 

Now did the UI suggest 3NT over pass? Yes, of course it did. Was there damage? Yes, since 3NT makes.

 

Law 16B says that we adjust if a player has UI, and he chooses from among logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by the UI over another, and there is damage.

 

So, you may say NO, but the laws say YES.