[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-May-30, 07:00, said:

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.

But there was no question or reply. The opponent merely looked at your CC. Is this action by the opponent allowed to wake you up?

Also, the AI vs UI issue is not quite as simple as you suggest. If you have the AI before the UI, the UI doesn't normally trump it. E.g. if you didn't forget your agreement in the first place, you aren't constrained when you hear partner explain it correctly. So this is why it's necessary to determine when you remembered: before or after partner answered the question. But is the question itself allowed to remind you?

[bluejak]

You have fallen into the trap again. AI does not trump UI whether it happens before it or not. The UI Laws apply whether there is AI or not.

[barmar]

My memory of our agreements is AI.
Partner then correctly explains my bid, which is UI.
Now, I have to avoid taking an action that's suggested by the explanation, even though it matches my understanding.

Is that really right?

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 19:50, said:

My memory of our agreements is AI.
Partner then correctly explains my bid, which is UI.
Now, I have to avoid taking an action that's suggested by the explanation, even though it matches my understanding.

Is that really right?

No

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 19:50, said:

My memory of our agreements is AI.
Partner then correctly explains my bid, which is UI.
Now, I have to avoid taking an action that's suggested by the explanation, even though it matches my understanding.

Is that really right?

Since the explanation was what you were expecting, it doesn't really suggest anything.

[pran]

campboy, on 2012-May-31, 04:04, said:

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 19:50, said:

My memory of our agreements is AI.
Partner then correctly explains my bid, which is UI.
Now, I have to avoid taking an action that's suggested by the explanation, even though it matches my understanding.

Is that really right?

Since the explanation was what you were expecting, it doesn't really suggest anything.

It does indeed suggest that he acts according to agreements.

Now if he had forgotten his agreements then he would not be allowed to "remember" them again from his partner's explanation (which of course is UI to him), but so long as he remembers his agreements his own knowledge (which of course is AI to him) overrides ("trumps") the corresponding UI received from his partner.

[Vampyr]

Posted redundantly before refreshing window.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 14:59, said:

But there was no question or reply. The opponent merely looked at your CC. Is this action by the opponent allowed to wake you up?

So, partner RHO looked at my CC after 1NT-4♥. Why? Oh he wants to know if we play Texas or not. And oops, we do. "Alert."

Tell me that exact line of thinking isn't going to happen - in fact doesn't happen every day. In this auction, it's pretty much SOP (especially for me when I play South African Texas).

Certain checks of the CC don't pass any useful UI - "he's checking our carding", or "she looked at the end of a 6-round auction. I wonder what he might be caring about" (of course, in that case they usually tell me what they think I am looking for. Frequently, they're wrong.) But this auction, a glance at the CC is functionally equivalent to "Do you play Texas?"

[Edit: thanks ArtK78]

[ArtK78]

mycroft, on 2012-May-31, 15:20, said:

So, partner looked at my CC after 1NT-4♥. Why? Oh he wants to know if we play Texas or not. And oops, we do. "Alert."

Tell me that exact line of thinking isn't going to happen - in fact doesn't happen every day. In this auction, it's pretty much SOP (especially for me when I play South African Texas).

Certain checks of the CC don't pass any useful UI - "he's checking our carding", or "she looked at the end of a 6-round auction. I wonder what he might be caring about" (of course, in that case they usually tell me what they think I am looking for. Frequently, they're wrong.) But this auction, a glance at the CC is functionally equivalent to "Do you play Texas?"

I may be missing something here, but I thought it was the opponent who looked at the convention card, not the partner of the 4♥ bidder. Clearly, looking at one's own convention card to determine if the 4♥ bid was a transfer is not allowed.

[mycroft]

ArtK78, on 2012-May-31, 15:35, said:

I may be missing something here, but I thought it was the opponent who looked at the convention card, not the partner of the 4♥ bidder. Clearly, looking at one's own convention card to determine if the 4♥ bid was a transfer is not allowed.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - in fact I was just wrong. Corrected. Of course, partner can't look.

But I bid 1NT, partner bids 4♥, and righty looks at our CC. What odds do you give me that he's *not* trying to find out if we're playing Texas?

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 19:50, said:

My memory of our agreements is AI.
Partner then correctly explains my bid, which is UI.
Now, I have to avoid taking an action that's suggested by the explanation, even though it matches my understanding.

Is that really right?

No. Time you re-read the UI Laws, methinks.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-May-31, 15:20, said:

So, partner RHO looked at my CC after 1NT-4♥. Why? Oh he wants to know if we play Texas or not. And oops, we do. "Alert."

Tell me that exact line of thinking isn't going to happen - in fact doesn't happen every day. In this auction, it's pretty much SOP (especially for me when I play South African Texas).

Certain checks of the CC don't pass any useful UI - "he's checking our carding", or "she looked at the end of a 6-round auction. I wonder what he might be caring about" (of course, in that case they usually tell me what they think I am looking for. Frequently, they're wrong.) But this auction, a glance at the CC is functionally equivalent to "Do you play Texas?"

[Edit: thanks ArtK78]

Isn't that the gist of the question in the OP: Where do the laws say that the opponent looking at your CC, or even asking you "Do you play Texas?", is UI? Your answer to them is UI to your partner, but where does it say that YOU can't be woken up by the opponent's action?

It SEEMS like there should be something wrong with this -- finding out what your system is is supposed to help the opponents, it's not supposed to make any difference to you. It also doesn't seem fair that it should matter which opponent they ask -- if they ask the player who remembered correctly, the answer is obviously UI to his partner who forgot, so the forgetter can't be woken up; but if they ask the player who forgot, the law seems to allow him to wake up as a result of the question, since he didn't get any UI from his partner.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-May-31, 23:43, said:

It also doesn't seem fair that it should matter which opponent they ask -- if they ask the player who remembered correctly, the answer is obviously UI to his partner who forgot, so the forgetter can't be woken up; but if they ask the player who forgot, the law seems to allow him to wake up as a result of the question, since he didn't get any UI from his partner.

It seems fair to me. The purpose of the UI rules is to maintain equity, not to punish a player for forgetting his methods, or reward opponents for a well timed question.

In the first case the player receives extraneous information that might benefit him, so the Laws intervene in order to maintain equity. In the second he received no extraneous information, so the Laws have no reason to get involved.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2012-May-31, 23:43, said:

Isn't that the gist of the question in the OP: Where do the laws say that the opponent looking at your CC, or even asking you "Do you play Texas?", is UI? Your answer to them is UI to your partner, but where does it say that YOU can't be woken up by the opponent's action?

Law 16A3 seems to fit. There is an argument that Law 16A1c would cover it, but I would not feel very happy about that - especially if you didn't Alert an Alertable call.

Quote

It SEEMS like there should be something wrong with this -- finding out what your system is is supposed to help the opponents, it's not supposed to make any difference to you. It also doesn't seem fair that it should matter which opponent they ask -- if they ask the player who remembered correctly, the answer is obviously UI to his partner who forgot, so the forgetter can't be woken up; but if they ask the player who forgot, the law seems to allow him to wake up as a result of the question, since he didn't get any UI from his partner.

Yes, I think this could be better organized in the next book. And it's yet another reason why I hate people whose CCs are seat cushions. I will admit I frequently ask those people to look at their CC for "no" reason (I'll look up their carding or something), just to hide when I am interested.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-June-01, 10:37, said:

Law 16A3 seems to fit. There is an argument that Law 16A1c would cover it, but I would not feel very happy about that - especially if you didn't Alert an Alertable call.

I think the argument made to the contrary is that 20F1 allows the opponent to ask questions, and thus the question falls under "legal procedures authorized in these laws" in 16A1c. Partner's answers also fall under "legal procedures", but then 73B1 makes it clear that this is not allowed as communication between partners. This seems to be the basis of the general rule: if it comes from partner, it's UI unless specifically authorized; if it comes from an opponent, it's AI unless specifically prohibited.

In particular, I think it's been long understood that you may take inferences from the fact that an opponent needed to know some detail of your methods, although at your own risk. Can the same action by the opponent be AI for taking inferences about HIS hand, but UI for helping you wake up about your own methods?

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-June-01, 02:18, said:

It seems fair to me. The purpose of the UI rules is to maintain equity, not to punish a player for forgetting his methods, or reward opponents for a well timed question.

I'm not interested in punishing the player for forgetting his methods, what bothers me is punishing the player who asks a question.

What seems unfair is that this is a Morton's Fork: You have to choose between waking the opponent up by looking at their CC or asking a question, or going without the information about their methods.

[jh51]

mycroft, on 2012-May-31, 15:20, said:

So, partner RHO looked at my CC after 1NT-4♥. Why? Oh he wants to know if we play Texas or not. And oops, we do. "Alert."

I (the OP) am confused by the reference to RHO. I was opener's LHO, so when opener passed 4♥X she would seem to have forgotten the agreement. (Although perhaps he thinks that the double is lead directing and he has no heart tenace to protect.) And in this particular case, opener volenteerd at the end of the auction that she had in fact forgotten and had become aware only because I looked at her partner's convention card.

[barmar]

I don't think anyone is questioning North's action of pulling to 4♠.

But even if being woken up by the opponent's action is not allowed, does South have any LA to pass? Could he possibly have a two-suiter in the majors, so that South should take preference back to 5♥? Or would he cue bid to explore for slam, when he could play 4♥ doubled?