[BLML] Misinformation and UI - Law 16B opinions?

Herman De Wael Hermandw at skynet.be
Mon Jan 4 10:32:03 CET 2010

Herman De Wael wrote:
> Robert Frick wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:33:28 -0500, Nigel Guthrie  
>> <nigel.guthrie41 at virginmedia.com> wrote:
>>> [Herman De Wael]
>>> Within a non-firm partnership, if S just passes, he gives the AI that he
>>> has probably thought it was natural.
>>> But if he alerts and passes, he gives the UI that although he thinks it
>>> is a transfer, he passes anyway.
>>> [Nigel]
>>> In *both* cases, you transmit unauthorised information to partner;
>> Sorry to jump in here and I don't know if this has been said. But an  
>> expected alert is not UI. That is a pretty strong inference from L16B1(a)  
>> list of examples. Right?
>> (You can also get that from L16A1(c), though I don't think L16A1 is  
>> constructed well enough to be usable.)
> Yes, it is generally accepted that an expected alert is not to be 
> considered UI. I don't see it in the laws anywhere, but it is accepted, yes.
> But this case revolves around an _un_expected alert. 

I was working from memory - the 2007 laws actually do contain all these 
words. My point is of course still valid.

> South knows that 
> North does not know what his bid means - he just hopes his partner is on 
> the same wavelength. Now, the alert is no longer expected and it thus 
> remains UI - even when it is correct.
> Herman.


More information about the Blml mailing list