[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 20B: During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial restatement of previous calls and may not halt the restatement before it is completed.

Nothing in there about "affected by the UI". In fact, there is no restriction on a player's entitlement here.

Quote

Law 16A1{a}: A player may use information in the auction or play if it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source

What is the UI here? It is that East was unaware that West had opened 2♥. East "woke up" when West explained East's 2NT bid as something different to what East expected. Does this mean that East is now not permitted to know what the auction actually was? No, it does not. It means he is not allowed to use the knowledge that he misunderstood his partner's opening bid. He's allowed to think "I bid Lebensohl, LHO interfered. Partner could have doubled to indicate he has diamonds. What would pass show? Clubs? He didn't pass, what's that mean? He bid 3♠. I suppose that means he has a pretty good spade suit". Is "pass" a LA for East at this point? If so, he has to pass.

[nige1]

 par31, on 2014-September-24, 07:16, said:

Club multiple teams, 4 board matches IMPs -> VPs. Bidding boxes in use. Table result 4♥=W, NS-420. 2♥ is alerted and explained by East as spades and a minor. The correct explanation is weak with both majors. East had misread the bid as 2♠. X is undiscussed. 2NT is alerted and explained by West as a game-forcing enquiry. Opposite a 2♠ opener, 2NT would have been Lebensohl-like. After this explanation, East woke up to his mistake and the TD was called. After North was provided with the correct explanation of the 2♥ bid he was given the option to change his double which he declined.
1) Is it UI or AI to East that West has opened 2♥?

---

It might depend on the likely systemic meaning of
2♠ (Double) 2N 3♦
3♠
If opener would double or pass with ♠ and ♦ then 3♠ might logically show a good hand with ♠ and ♣. Opener's explanation of 2N seems to have woken responder up to his misreading of the opening bid. Absent UI, It's uncertain whether responder would review the previous auction and realise his error. I'm told that an international Italian pair completed a complex auction to the wrong slam before one partner realised his opening bid was a mechanical error.

Furthermore, systemically, must opener rebid after RHO bids 3♦? 3♠ smacks of a deliberate attempt to wake up a dozy responder.

[LH2650]

What is the UI here?

West also has UI that East did not understand his bid, and I believe it suggests bidding 3♠ over the logical alternative of Pass, so 3♠ should not be allowed. Does anyone agree? Where does that leave us?

[blackshoe]

 LH2650, on 2014-September-25, 18:41, said:

What is the UI here?

West also has UI that East did not understand his bid, and I believe it suggests bidding 3♠ over the logical alternative of Pass, so 3♠ should not be allowed. Does anyone agree? Where does that leave us?

Why does it suggest bidding 3♠? Why is pass a logical alternative?1

[campboy]

 LH2650, on 2014-September-25, 18:41, said:

What is the UI here?

West also has UI that East did not understand his bid, and I believe it suggests bidding 3♠ over the logical alternative of Pass, so 3♠ should not be allowed. Does anyone agree? Where does that leave us?

East has UI, since the explanation of 2NT was not the one he was expecting.

West also has UI, as you say. We are told 2NT is GF enquiry over 2♥, though, so I expect it asks about shape and 3♠ is just the system bid here, with pass being 4-4 (of course we should check if called to the table, but here we can only speculate).

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-September-25, 11:55, said:

Also, I'd be interested to know whether anyone would rule differently depending on whether bidding boxes or spoken bidding were in use.

Similarly to my answer above, I would rule differently depending on whether 2H was misheard as 2S, or whether 2H was misinterpreted as showing spades and a minor. If the former, then the information from the 2H bid is unaffected by unauthorised information. The information from the imaginary 2S bid is indeed affected by unauthorised information, and that cannot be used. If the latter, I would rule that the information conveyed by the 2H bid was indeed affected by unauthorised information, in that the original information it conveyed was that it showed spades and a minor, and the new information that it conveys, that it shows both majors, is affected by unauthorised information. In our example, the 2H bid is not affected at all; it is the imaginary 2S bid that is. That was not one of the calls made.

One issue which arises if we do follow this approach is that it is in East's interests to lie and say that he misread the opening bid, when in fact he misinterpreted its meaning. However, res ipsa loquitur will often apply, and the auction will tell the TD that this is not the case.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2014-September-25, 14:12, said:

Is the "review please" allowed, because the reason for the request, and therefore the answer given, is "affected by the UI"?

Is the player allowed, at any point, to look at the table and notice what bidding cards are displayed?

[mycroft]

After transmission of UI, if I look at the auction and see it's different from what I believed, is it "affected by the UI"?

The auction is, as quoted, always AI. But AI does not necessarily trump UI, as we are frequently fond of saying. The question that campboy et al is asking is is this one of those cases or not, based on the "affected by the UI" language (and, I assume, the LA language).

I don't in fact have an answer to that question. I don't even have a belief in what should be right. But asking the question that prompted the discussion as if it answers the question that prompted the discussion is somewhat circular ("begging the question" comes to mind, and I might even be using that phrase rhetorically correctly this time).

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2014-September-26, 10:49, said:

Is the player allowed, at any point, to look at the table and notice what bidding cards are displayed?

The "review please" response was to a post about spoken bidding. There's nothing on the table to look at, that's why he asks for a review.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2014-September-25, 10:46, said:

That law itself. The bid itself is AI.

At lest you're consistent. I'd expect an interpretation like this from someone who thinks that L16 says that after a player forgets an agreement, LAs after UI are based on his actual system rather than the system he thought he was playing when he made the earlier bid.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-September-27, 09:07, said:

The "review please" response was to a post about spoken bidding. There's nothing on the table to look at, that's why he asks for a review.

Looking at the cards on the table is the equivalent.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2014-September-27, 09:09, said:

At lest you're consistent. I'd expect an interpretation like this from someone who thinks that L16 says that after a player forgets an agreement, LAs after UI are based on his actual system rather than the system he thought he was playing when he made the earlier bid.

No, I don't think that. I did at one time, but I think it was Richard Hills that pointed out the more specific Law 75 which contradicts Law 16, and therefore takes precedence by being more specific, under some WBFLC minute. So, if East forgot the agreement and genuinely thought 2H showed spades and a minor, he is obliged to continue to think that. However, if he thought West opened 2S, he is allowed to use the AI that West actually opened 2H.