[jh51]

---

The 4♥ bid was not announced. I was west and chose to look at the opponent's convention card before making my call. After the bidding was complete, North informed us of South's failure to announce his transfer bid. South mentioned that she remembered that 4♥ was a transfer when I looked at her partner's convention card. 4♠ made 6.

Clearly South's failure to announce was UI to North, but I don't know that anything but 4♠ is a LA.

Since South woke up when I looked at her partner's convention card, is the AI or UI? I would think UI, but I am not a rules expert.

If South has UI, is passing 4♠ a logical alternative?

What is the correct ruling on this hand?

I must admit that at the table, I did not think to call the director as I should have.

[ArtK78]

I am not a rules expert, but I would suspect that any action of an opponent would be AI, not UI.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2012-May-25, 14:43, said:

I am not a rules expert, but I would suspect that any action of an opponent would be AI, not UI.

If the opponent had said something like "I see on your CC that you play Texas Transfers", that would be AI. But I don't think the mere act of looking at your card should be allowed to wake you up. Opponents should be able to take advantage of their right to know your methods without disadvantaging themselves.

[blackshoe]

What information about your own methods does an opponent looking at your system card transmit?

[barmar]

It reminds you that this bid is likely to be artificial, since the opponent felt the need to look, and that wakes you up to the fact that you play the convention.

How about a similar scenario? Instead of looking at your CC, he asks you "Is that a transfer?". You had initially forgotten, but his question reminded you that it is. Obviously, you must answer "yes", since otherwise it would be MI. But are you allowed to bid based on this?

[blackshoe]

I don't think so.

What worries me, though, at least as a player, is the possibility that I might wake up before the UI, and before I can say anything, I get the UI. The director will have only my word that I woke up on my own, so he will rule on the basis that I acted on UI, if that's a possibility. That's the law, and as a director I apply it (and recognize that it makes my job easier) but as a player, I don't like it.

[Trinidad]

North has UI: South didn't alert 4♥. But North doesn't have an LA. Therefore, 4♠ is allowed.

South hears North pull from 4♥X to 4♠. This sequence cannot show two suits, there are other sequences for that. Neither can 4♠ be some kind of cue. If 4♥ was a sign off in game, then 4♠ is impossible.

Based on that AI, South can conclude that North intended 4♥ as a transfer. Therefore, South is allowed to pass 4♠.

The remaining issue will be the misinformation. It seems that East was aware that 4♥ was a transfer. Otherwise he wouldn't have doubled 4♥ (Dbl would have been takeout). West said that he was not misinformed, since he looked at the CC.

So, the only infraction was the failure to alert, but it didn't lead to damage. No AS, but it would be possible to penalize NS (though I don't see any reason to do more than warn).

Rik

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-26, 12:56, said:

I don't think so.

What worries me, though, at least as a player, is the possibility that I might wake up before the UI, and before I can say anything, I get the UI. The director will have only my word that I woke up on my own, so he will rule on the basis that I acted on UI, if that's a possibility. That's the law, and as a director I apply it (and recognize that it makes my job easier) but as a player, I don't like it.

Just because a statement is self-serving it doesn't mean the TD has to ignore it. Try to seem as honest as possible when you make them, and maybe he'll believe you.

And if he doesn't, that's the breaks for forgetting your agreements, even briefly.

[iviehoff]

jh51, on 2012-May-25, 14:00, said:

After the bidding was complete, North informed us of South's failure to announce his transfer bid. South mentioned that she remembered that 4♥ was a transfer when I looked at her partner's convention card.
Since South woke up when I looked at her partner's convention card, is the AI or UI? I would think UI, but I am not a rules expert.

We would be aware precisely when South woke up if South had obeyed law 20F4 that says she must immediately call the director at the point of becoming aware of the misexplanation.* If called at precisely the point in time mentioned, East can still have his call again, though in fact in the present case East is probably happy about his call. But probably just as importantly, it assures West that East's call is not affected by MI.

Whether the opponent's action of looking at a convention card, which is equivalent to asking for the meaning of a bid, is AI/UI is irrelevant to the present case. What precedent consistently shows is that if you are woken up to a fact about your own system following from the opponents enquiring about your system, that relevant fact about your own system is now certainly UI.

*A very curious fact about 20F4 is that everyone seems to assume that the procedure under 20F4 case includes a corrected explanation following the attendance of the director, but actually the law does not say so. It instructs the player only to call the director, not to correct the explanation, even after calling the director. The director is instructed to apply certain laws, but they do not mention getting a corrected explanation out of the player. This omission might be thought significant because in the other case, correcting your partner's (never corrected) misexplanation, the law does instruct you to give a corrected explanation, and when to give it.

[barmar]

I think 21B1a implies that the MI is corrected. Otherwise, how would the opponent know whether to change his call because his original call was based on MI?

[campboy]

South has no UI. Pass is not an LA for North, but what about redouble? The TD should investigate what it means.

[blackshoe]

I moved iviehoff's last post and my predecessor to it to a new topic in "Changing Laws".

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-May-27, 23:46, said:

Try to seem as honest as possible when you make them, and maybe he'll believe you.

I don't think much of a world in which the default assumption is that people are liars. Well, except maybe politicians.

[Lanor Fow]

Which is why you rule against anyone in a 'I realised before I got the UI' case, where there is no evidence to support that surely. To not do that would be to accuse the poeple you rule against of lying and deciding those you rule with as being honest.

[barmar]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-May-29, 07:20, said:

Which is why you rule against anyone in a 'I realised before I got the UI' case, where there is no evidence to support that surely. To not do that would be to accuse the poeple you rule against of lying and deciding those you rule with as being honest.

So instead of accusing some people of lying, you think it's better to accuse ALL people who say that of lying? Since you're consistent, it's not as bad an accusation? Or are you saying that it's not an accusation, it's just a mechanical application of a process that ignores what the player claims?

[Lanor Fow]

It's not meant an accusation, any more than applying laws that have such phrases 'May be aware' etc. The laws seem to be normally designed to allow rulings against people without accusing them of cheating.

There is probably no way of telling the difference between those who are telling the truth and thsoe who aren't without any other evidence, and in a 'I remembered before I got UI' case there is rarely going to be any evidence. If I rule consistently this way then I can explain that I am not accusing them of cheating, but because there is no way of verifying their statement and poeple who would cheat could say the same, I always rule this way (worded a lot better than that of course).

I'm not that experienced a director, but I thought this was the standard way of dealing with this situation. I certainly didn't come up with it myself and thought I heard it from some very experienced directors. If my approach is wrong here I would very much like to be corrected.

If I am ever convinced that a player is lying to me as a director in any circumstances, this would be dealt with much more severely than applying UI laws.

[blackshoe]

You're not wrong, Lanor.

[Vampyr]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-May-29, 10:14, said:

It's not meant an accusation, any more than applying laws that have such phrases 'May be aware' etc. The laws seem to be normally designed to allow rulings against people without accusing them of cheating.

Yes, this is the point, and similarly with UI. You don't accuse anyone of anything; you just say "This is the way we have to rule when this happens".

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-28, 02:14, said:

What precedent consistently shows is that if you are woken up to a fact about your own system following from the opponents enquiring about your system, that relevant fact about your own system is now certainly UI.

Can you give a real-life example of this precedent? That is, of UI being created by the opponent's enquiry rather than by partner's answer?

Also, what is the legal justification for this view? It seems to me that it is authorised, because the opponent's enquiry arises "from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations", and is not "otherwise specified" to be unauthorised.

[bluejak]

Yet again, the "I have UI and AI" problem rears its ugly head. If an opponent asks a question that is AI and partner's reply is UI. People then ask whether the AI trumps the UI. It doesn't: if you read the UI Laws they apply whether there is AI as well or not.

If a player has AI and UI what should he do? Follow Law 73C as far as the UI is concerned.

If a player has AI and UI what should the do TD when called? Follow Law 16B as far as the UI is concerned.