[BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI

Nigel Guthrie g3 at nige1.com
Wed Sep 26 20:14:35 CEST 2012

{Steve Willner]
To Al Levy: it's obvious to everyone that a remark is UI to partner. The 
question is how to justify making it AI to opponents.

[Alain Gottcheiner]
I didn't follow the early messages on this thread, but to me the answer to 
this specific question is rather obvious : if your mannerism was UI to your 
opponents, it would be in your interest to make some, in order to restrict 
your opponents' liberty. Not a good idea. So AI it must be.

Alain's argument is logically watertight.  An opponent's remark should be UI 
to his partner but AI to you.

Opponents must lean over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI. So 
providing opponents with UI can be a profitable tactic.  Examples abound. 
For example, nowadays, if you suspect opponents are suffering a 
misunderstanding, it may pay to ask about the auction, to make any UI 
explicit and ensure a favourable ruling, if either opponent takes advantage.

If Bridge law were logical, then Alain's argument would be conclusive, The 
fly in the ointment is that the law is illogical and unfair.

A relevant example is "Protect yourself" legislation that can force you to 
ask about an unalerted call. When it turns out that the call is natural, 
after all, you've shackled partner with UI constraints.

Another relevant example if I remember it correctly. I think Grattan 
Endicott said that if you discover opponents have misexplained a call then 
information arising directly from that misexplanation is UI to you.  You are 
entitled to know only their actual agreement.

Depressing stuff.

More information about the Blml mailing list