Auction UI or AI?

[lamford]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.