[blml] AI or UI

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Gampas at aol.com a écrit :
>
>  
> Hmm ... the version of the 1997 laws I possess only has a L72B4, not a  
> L72B5, and the 2007 Laws appear to only have a L72B3. Could you clarify this,  
> please.
>   
Sorry. A5.

> "16 C2 (and, identically, 16D2 in the new Laws): For the  offending side, 
> information arising from its own withdrawn action and from  withdrawn actions of 
> the non-offending side is unauthorised. <snip>"
>  
> It would seem to me that the club void with the correct opening leader is  UI 
> to his partner, as this information was "*arising* from its own  withdrawn 
> action" where "its" clearly refers to the offending side, and "arising  from" 
> means, IMHO, "occurring as a consequence of".
>   
AG : IMHO, it arises as a consequence of declarer's choice, because it 
wouldn't have occurred, present the infraction but absent declarer's 
decision.
But you're right, it's open to discussion.

I'm ready to classify the case with the following one :
East leads a Spade OOT. South requests a Spade lead from West, into his 
tenace. For some strange reason, it turns out to be the lethal lead. 
Declarer was unlucky.
Here, he was unlucky to demand a club, which happened to be useful to 
the defense through information that arose from the non-lead (not from 
the LOOT).

The problem is, L72A5 (yes, A) refers us to L16, but doesn't say when 
L16 might apply. I think the spirit of that reference is that, even 
after the HK is withdrawn and the lead penalty played, the fact that the 
player leading the King will often have the Queen too is UI.

Am I wrong by thinking that the word "arise" shan't be used in reference 
to very indirect consequences, as here, because it carries the notion of 
suddennness ?

Best regards


   Alain