AI, UI or EI?
The following happened recently at a regular MP Pairs session at a bridge club somewhere in England.
South subsequently asked my opinion.
East dealt and opened 1NT, announced by West. South and West passed and North bid 2C.
NS were playing Multi-Landy but South could not remember the meaning of the 2C bid. South alerted and East asked.
South said she couldn't remember and she suggested calling the TD or that East look at their System Card. NS were the only, or almost the only, pair at the session with System Cards.
East looked at the card briefly and said something like "I can't make head or tale of this". Quite possibly he was unfamiliar with System Cards and their layouts.
West then grabbed the card out of East's hands and looked and said "The 2C shows both majors".
South assumed that this was unauthorised information (UI) to her and that she now couldn't guess to bid a major and passed 2C, resulting in a bad score.
South reckoned that she would have been better off by calling the TD rather than offering the System Card. The TD would hopefully have sent South away from the table and asked North to explain to EW if North thought there was a partnership agreement and, if so, what that agreement was. South would then have been unaware of the correct information that EW would now have had and South would have been unburdened by any UI.
Information from an opponent about your own side's agreement is not listed in Law 16A and not in Law 16B1 either. Law 16D1 (Extraneous Information from other sources) does include the words "overhearing ... remarks" which could be taken to apply in this case. There is nothing in the 2017 Laws Commentary or the EBU White Book that I can see relating to this.
Can it be argued that West's revealing of the meaning of the 2C is AI to South?
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Comments
This (or something similar) has come up before and there is some guidance, but I can't remember where I saw it.
From what I remember it is neither UI nor AI but EI, so there is no logical alternative test but S has to be careful not to take advantage of it.
I'll go hunting...
I haven't found it yet, but:
It's not in 16A or C, so it's not AI.
It's not from partner, so it's not UI (16B)
I think it is covered by 16D "overhearing ... remarks"
Correct response in this case is to call the director, who would (I think) determine that the information would
likely interfere with normal play (16D2). OK S has forgotten but has had the chance of remembering (or even guessing correctly) taken away from him by the EI. If so, EW are clearly at fault so AV+/AV- to NS.
Which is a bit harsh since the problem was caused by South breaching Law 20 (entitlement to know methods). Maybe AV-,AV- if you feel nasty (penalising them for not calling the TD) or AV, AV (both sides partially at fault).
So we are sticking with Law 16D and South "overhearing" West's "remark", and this interferes with normal play, so we assign an artificial score.
In what way has South "breached" Law 20? I am not aware of any Law that says that players have to remember their side's agreements. South has attempted to supply East with the correct information via the System Card. Had West not grabbed the card, no doubt South would have called the TD for an alternative method of informing opponent (by sending South away etc, which the TD can instruct under Law 20F1).
Was West entitled to grab the System Card and read it before it was his turn? It was West who provided the EI. I suspect that East didn't actually have any interest in the meaning of the 2C bid before the end of the auction anyway, but that has to remain as just a suspicion.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I've thought about this and had a discussion with someone on the WBFLC and my view is to be found at https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/discussion/1362/ai-and-ui#latest
Thanks, Gordon.
It seems it can! :)))))
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live