[blml] Rif. : Re: Two UI/AI cases [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads
> Alain wrote:
> 
> > AG : The problem, and the reason for my question, is the following
> > : there are some situations where you're not allowed to use
> > information that was at your disposal in full legality, because
> > somebody (especially partner) has reminded you of that information.
> 
> Maybe, but the L16 intro is unequivocal on this particular one: "Players
> are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal
> calls and plays"
> Taken together with L20b: "During the auction period, a player is
> entitled to have all  previous calls restated when it is his turn to call,
> unless he is required by law to pass; Alerts should be included in the
> restatement."
> 
> We simply cannot deny knowledge of the *actual* auction to a player.

But we can deny a player the correct understanding of the auction if it is
possible (likely?) that his understanding is the result of unauthorized
information. 

In Norway we deny a player the right to "suddenly remember" an agreement he
had apparently forgotten if he effectively has had a reminder from his
partner. 

Sven