[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-September-02, 03:15, said:

Where in the laws is information received from an opponent ever defined as UI?

I'm confused. Earlier, you said that "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents".

Suppose that I say to West "On your card it says that 2♦ shows the majors. Which is correct, the card or your original explanation?" How much of that is AI to West?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-September-02, 10:22, said:

I'm confused. Earlier, you said that "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents".

Suppose that I say to West "On your card it says that 2♦ shows the majors. Which is correct, the card or your original explanation?" How much of that is AI to West?

Consult Law 20F4 which is applicable on West and Law 20F5 which is applicable on East in this situation.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-September-02, 11:02, said:

Consult Law 20F4 which is applicable on West and Law 20F5 which is applicable on East in this situation.

Law 20F4 tells us that at this point West should call the director. What does that have to do with my question?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-September-02, 12:21, said:

Law 20F4 tells us that at this point West should call the director. What does that have to do with my question?

That all information arising from this sequence is UI to East. (West is awoken legally, fair enough.)

[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-September-02, 14:15, said:

That all information arising from this sequence is UI to East. (West is awoken legally, fair enough.)

So when you said "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents", you actually meant "your clarifying question is AI to West but UI to East; the answer is AI to East"?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-September-02, 14:30, said:

So when you said "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents", you actually meant "your clarifying question is AI to West but UI to East; the answer is AI to East"?

Nothing West says in response to a question from North or South is AI to East as far as I can tell in a hurry.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-September-02, 22:37, said:

Nothing West says in response to a question from North or South is AI to East as far as I can tell in a hurry.

Yes, we all know that West's answer is UI to East. What I asked was whether South's question is UI to East.

Earlier in this thread, you seemed to say that South could ask the opponents about the discrepancy between the explanation and the convention card, and that South's question would be UI to the opponents. Did you mean to say that? I'm not trying to score points - I'm just trying to clarify what you think the rules are.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-September-02, 10:22, said:

Suppose that I say to West "On your card it says that 2♦ shows the majors. Which is correct, the card or your original explanation?" How much of that is AI to West?

I think all of it, under 16A( c) in that it arose from 20F1. 16B1 only covers UI which "a player makes available to his partner", so I think that the question is AI, but the answer he receives is UI.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-September-03, 04:55, said:

I think all of it, under 16A( c) in that it arose from 20F1. 16B1 only covers UI which "a player makes available to his partner", so I think that the question is AI, but the answer he receives is UI.

But it is the question that alerts the player to his true agreements.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-03, 14:57, said:

But it is the question that alerts the player to his true agreements.

But that is clearly "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" in that it is a question under 20F and surely therefore AI under 16A1c. The answer is covered by 16B1a and is agreed by everyone I think to be UI.

[barmar]

You're not allowed to look at your own CC during bidding and play of the hand, that's well known.

If an opponent looks at your CC, and asks you or your partner a question that reveals the contents of your CC, is that not effectively equivalent to looking at your CC? Is it really appropriate that you can be woken up to your misbid through such a question? It seems wrong, as it would discourage the opponent asking a very appropriate question because he risks waking up the opponent.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-September-04, 16:30, said:

You're not allowed to look at your own CC during bidding and play of the hand, that's well known.

If an opponent looks at your CC, and asks you or your partner a question that reveals the contents of your CC, is that not effectively equivalent to looking at your CC? Is it really appropriate that you can be woken up to your misbid through such a question? It seems wrong, as it would discourage the opponent asking a very appropriate question because he risks waking up the opponent.

I would be surprised if it is counted as "looking at your convention card" when an opponent draws attention to it and you need to clarify something or confirm that the information on the card is in error. Yes, UI might ensue which you cannot use, but the act itself would not be a violation.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-04, 16:38, said:

I would be surprised if it is counted as "looking at your convention card" when an opponent draws attention to it and you need to clarify something or confirm that the information on the card is in error. Yes, UI might ensue which you cannot use, but the act itself would not be a violation.

That's what I was talking about, whether you're allowed to use the information on your CC if an opponent reveals it to you in some way. Is that considered equivalent to using a memory aid? I think it should be.

[aguahombre]

The point I was making was that using a memory aid is a violation in and of itself: but looking at your card when an opponent draws attention to it is not. You still might receive UI which you cannot use, but you have not committed an infraction.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-05, 23:16, said:

The point I was making was that using a memory aid is a violation in and of itself: but looking at your card when an opponent draws attention to it is not. You still might receive UI which you cannot use, but you have not committed an infraction.

Are you saying that the information on your system card is UI to you?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-06, 06:27, said:

Are you saying that the information on your system card is UI to you?

As coming from the system card the information is of course UI to the owner of the system card (and AI to opponents).
So long as the information comes from a player's own memory it is equally (of course) AI.

[blackshoe]

And how, Sven, do you propose to determine which it is, when the opponents are insisting that 'he saw his own system card, and that's illegal'?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-06, 06:27, said:

Are you saying that the information on your system card is UI to you?

Of course, not. The conversation was about referring to the card during the bidding. The case in point was whether, when an opponent draws attention to a discrepancy on your card, that discrepancy is UI when you have made a different explanation.

It would be proper to look, when an opponent is the one who draws attention. And, you might even solve everything by stating truthfully that the card is not correct or current. But if you were the one who was not correct, then you have UI.

I cannot imagine what I said before was unclear. Incorrect, maybe. I can deal with that; but it wasn't unclear.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-06, 09:29, said:

And how, Sven, do you propose to determine which it is, when the opponents are insisting that 'he saw his own system card, and that's illegal'?

I usually put the opponents' convention card under the bidding box, or on the side table, if available. This is not to ensure that they can't see it, but simply to reduce clutter. But it has occurred to me now that a side effect is that they can't, in fact, see it. So players who are worried that their opponents might take a peek at their own card can put it in these places, under their scorecard, open to a relatively uninformative page, folded, etc.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-06, 11:41, said:

I usually put the opponents' convention card under the bidding box, or on the side table, if available. This is not to ensure that they can't see it, but simply to reduce clutter. But it has occurred to me now that a side effect is that they can't, in fact, see it. So players who are worried that their opponents might take a peek at their own card can put it in these places, under their scorecard, open to a relatively uninformative page, folded, etc.

If I tried to put an opponent's system card on a side table, or somewhere else they couldn't see it, I'd probably lose a hand.

We have no regulation here regarding exchange of system cards. We have no culture that suggest doing so. In fact, when a player has a system card — they frequently don't, particularly at clubs — it's stuck in a plastic holder with his personal score, and he will only reluctantly allow an opponent to — momentarily — look at it, provided the opponent gives it right back. There's also the group who say, as a player rather superciliously said to me once, "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions."