[MickyB]

I always thought that when in receipt of UI that you should try not to choose a call that is suggested by the UI over other LAs. If I have understood it correctly, The Bridge World's November editorial is saying that this is incorrect.

"[Some people tell] recipients of UI not to choose an action thereby suggested. That is very bad advice. In fact, it would be illegal to follow it in general, because a recipient of UI is required to ignore the extraneous information, to take the normal action. ([Laws] 73C, 73D1 and 74A3)."

Any comments? Making a call that you know will be adjusted is in effect giving the opps a double shot. If you instead choose a call that is not suggested by the UI, what action can be taken by the TD? In fact, this seems to suggest that you *should* make the call suggested by UI, as otherwise you may be trying to avoid giving the opps their double shot...

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2004-November-03, 16:43

[Flame]

I think you can and should avoid giving your opponents two shuts, i dont think the laws you mention say otherwise.(maybe even support this).
Your action is not effected by your partner ui its effected by your opponents calling the director, saving their rights, or your knowing they will.(depend on the procedure in ur place)
imo 73c "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. " even suggest that you not use any alternative in question.
It doesnt say you should ignore the UI, its sepficly say you should void taking advance of it. Also the word carfully suggest if in question go with the other alternatives.

[epeeist]

MickyB, on Nov 3 2004, 05:41 PM, said:

...a recipient of UI is required to ignore the extraneous information, to take the normal action. ([Laws] 73C, 73D1 and 74A3)."

[excerpt only quoted]

Makes sense to me. If I understand what it was saying, it's that if there is e.g. only one normal action (NOT multiple logical alternatives), that you take that action. You don't refuse to take that action just because of the UI.

For instance, let's say your partner hesitates a long time before bidding a transfer bid (2♥ over your 1NT). Knowing your partner, you might get UI from this hesitation (say, you can guess your p hesitated deciding whether to raise NT or use a transfer with an intermediate-value hand, so you can guess your p has a particularly good ♠ suit). However, you still take the normal action of bidding 2♠ completing the transfer. You don't refuse to take that normal action (e.g. passing or bidding something else) simply because you received UI.

Now, if you used the UI to jump to 4♠ or something because based on the hesitation you have UI that your p has a much stronger than normal hand, that's wrong. But taking the normal action of bidding 2♠ is what you should do despite having received UI.

[MickyB]

I don't think that is what was meant, maybe I should have quoted more:

"Even though [Law 16] speaks only to what a player should not do, it is occasionally misinterpreted into a positive suggestion to evaluate alternatives in the light of UI. That evaluation is something that a director or appeals committee might well undertake, but for a player to do it would be to use it would be to use UI for the basis for choosing an action."

It then has the paragraph that I quoted in my original post. This is followed by:

"Perhaps those dispensing behavio(u)ral recommendations mean to warn against choosing an abnormal action suggested by UI, which would be sound advice"

"We suspect that the root cause of confusion in this area is the failure of the Laws to distinguish between a player's correct procedure (intended to be in Law 16) and a director's correct procedure (see Law 73F1) in UI situations."