[mycroft]

lamford, on Sep 29 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

Tossing a coin to ensure that he adopts the correct strategy does seem like a clear .... aid to technique to me.

Let us say that on every hand with three small trumps where a defender does not want to convey any signal but wants to play them randomly. His rolling of a die and looking at it is both an aid to technique and UI to his partner that the choice was entirely random. In our example, UI cannot occur as he is declarer, but it is still an aid to technique.

Return of the Secretary Bird: UI certainly can, and in fact has occurred. It is simply that dummy has no opportunity to choose an alternative, never mind one suggested by the UI, so there can not be damage.

I am also in the "Get a Life" camp. But I am also an SB, and I believe that when SB-ing the Laws produces unintended, unwanted results, that (while we rule at the table rationally) those situations should be publicised, noted, and that reasonable attempts to rationalize the Laws should occur (I think, at least in Bridge, that if it requires unreasonable effort to "smooth out the odd corner cases", that "TDs are allowed to think, you know" is a reasonable response). After all, "Oh come on, that will never happen" is a magic phrase, we all know that...