bluejak, on 2012-February-25, 14:33, said:
While I agree that one should be obliged to answer questions from the TD, I could find nothing in the Laws which states this. The nearest I could find was a PP for:
"8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director."
So, if the TD instructs the player to answer, then a PP can be given, but this goes against the right to silence enshrined in English (and much international) law for many centuries. Yes, I know that it is a game, not a court case, but the principle is there.
I thought it was clear from the options in the OP that it was a hypothetical case, and I expect this type of problem will occur a lot. Mr and Mrs Below-Average will just answer "it seemed the right thing to do at the time" when asked why they opened 1NT or responded 2NT. A CPU is the furthest thing from their mind, and in any case the opponents would do nothing different if they were aware of the CPU. Even if South had his no-trump range wrong, his correct 16B action is to Pass 2NT, because the Law is misworded. I am sure that the only LA for someone playing a 15-17 no-trump is Pass, and I would argue that selecting the LA that is chosen by 100% of peers is carefully avoiding taking advantage of any UI. Under the current Laws.
So, regardless of what South said, I would rule no adjustment. To the contract anyway. I sent the suggested adjustment to the Laws to the WBFLC, on Grattan's request for such suggestions on another forum.