[blml] UI iinfraction?

[Guthrie]

[Max Bavin]
Accidentally giving UI is not an infraction. Bridge is a thinking game; 
when we think it is often possible to diagnose what it was we were 
thinking about. The infraction is when this unauthorized information is 
used.

[Nigel]
What Max writes seems in accord with the intentions of the WBFLC. Are 
his words of wisdom enshrined the new law-book? Such a clear statement 
would save lots of argument and unpleasantness! :) :)

Yet ... nevertheless ... it is still unclear -
  - How can you tell if UI is *intentional*?
  - How should a director rule in a doubtful case?

Here is an example (changed from a real appeal case).
(1N ) P (2D = Hearts) P
(2H ) ...P (P) ??

Suppose, in this case, that partner - an experienced player -
  - passes smoothly over LHO's 1N but
  - hesitates over LHO' 2H response to RHO's 2D transfer.

2H is passed round to you and you have a hand on which P and 3C are 
logical alternatives.

You surmise from partner's trance that he has a marginal take-out double 
so you feel constrained to pass (choosing the LA *not* suggested).

Unexpectedly, partner has a massive heart stack (hence an automatic pass 
over 2H) and your side gets a near top. The director is called.

The director *believes* your opponent's claim that:
Many pairs would bid on your hand and your partner *might have known* 
that his hesitation would inhibit such action by you".

First, consider the case when partner can offer no explanation for his 
hesitation -
  - Should you have called the director yourself?
  - How should the director rule?
  - What is relevant law? (Grattan has suggested L73).

Now suppose that partner, a player of good repute, has a plausible 
explanation for his hesitation. For example ...
"I was considering a penalty double :) Belatedly I remembered that, 
systemically, double would be takeout :(".

The director *believes* this explanation and concludes that the 
hesitation was inadvertent -- without nefarious intent. Should that 
effect his ruling?

*IMO*

The stated intention of the player should be irrelevant. But without it 
it is even harder to judge whether UI is accidental or deliberate. And 
surely *deliberate* UI is a possible infraction.

Anyway, in cases like this: the hesitator should be ruled against, even 
if the director is *certain* that the misleading UI was *accidental*.

Accidental UI may not be an *infraction* but is an *irregularity* and 
the law should not sanction damage to innocent players directly caused 
by opponents' irregularities.

More controversially: The player's intent should *never* be relevant to 
bridge rules except
  - in senses like "The player might have known that it would work to 
his advantage to...".
  - in cases of suspected cheating.