1. Was UI available? (Law 16A)
( ) Yes ( ) No
Describe the action that created the UI:
The pair who made UI available are considered the offenders. That does not mean we will automatically adjust their score.
2. Did the UI demonstrably suggest the action taken by the player who had UI available over any other, less successful alternatives? (Law 16B1a)
( ) Yes ( ) No
If yes, why?
3. List alternative actions that might have produced a less successful outcome for the offenders:
4. Circle each alternative in step three that is "logical", per the criteria in Law 16B1b (printed for reference on the reverse of this form). If the law is not clear to you then for each action consider the following: Would it have been obviously foolish, an egregious error, absurd, or would it be right quite often? If the last, it is a logical alternative.
Were any of the alternatives in step 3 logical alternatives?
( ) Yes ( ) No
5. If the answers to each of questions 1, 2, and 4 is "Yes" then proceed to Laws 12C1b and 12C1e. Be sure to consider the adjustments for the offenders and non-offenders separately.
If the answer to any of these questions is "No" then the score cannot be adjusted under Law 16.
==============================================================Excerpts from the 2008 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, for reference:
Law 73C. Player receives unauthorized information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.
Law 16B1. Extraneous information from Partner
(a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.
UI Form version 1.4 -- January 19, 2010