UI - or not.

JeremyChild

Playing on Realbridge with partner alerting (as opposed to self alerting). I make a bid, partner alerts and when asked gives incorrect explanation.

In order to reduce MI, I send private messages to the opponents telling them the true explanation - so far my partner has no UI.

Opponent then says out loud "Oh it's actually Michaels is it?"

Partner now has information that they only have through opponents actions (albeit not information they should use - probably).

Is it UI? If so, can it be treated more leniently because Opponents have contributed to the existence of the UI?

Robin_BarkerTD

It is not information 'from partner' so it is not subject to the full force of 16B. Instead it is information from other sources, so Law 16D applies - allow play to continue and ... (?).

If you are prepared to correct partner's failure to alert, you might be better off playing with self-alerts.

JeremyChild

Thanks Robin

@Robin_BarkerTD said:

If you are prepared to correct partner's failure to alert, you might be better off playing with self-alerts.

I prefer partner alerting because it's much easier than typing out stuff, which IMHO detracts from the enjoyment of bridge.

weejonnie

@Robin_BarkerTD said:
It is not information 'from partner' so it is not subject to the full force of 16B. Instead it is information from other sources, so Law 16D applies - allow play to continue and ... (?).

If you are prepared to correct partner's failure to alert, you might be better off playing with self-alerts.

I could argue that the original source of the information IS from partner and16B should apply. The fact that it has been disseminated by a third party is irrelevant.

gordonrainsford

@weejonnie said:
I could argue that the original source of the information IS from partner and16B should apply. The fact that it has been disseminated by a third party is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant: that's where the information came from.