[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.
>>> 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.
More information about the Blml