[blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael:

>I believe that a more accepted interpretation is that once there is
>AI of the same content as UI, the UI restrictions fall away.
>
>This is the interpretation needed when we are ruling in very simple
>cases of UI. Say your partner alerts your 2C Stayman and explains
>it as Stayman. You have UI that he has interpreted it as Stayman,
>and you also have AI that he should interpret it as Stayman.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, only an _unexpected_ alert and/or an _unexpected_
explanation creates UI.  So, in my opinion, it is not a true analogy.

Of course, pard's alert and explanation would be UI to you if you had
had a senior moment and had suddenly forgotten that you were playing
Stayman.

:-)

Herman De Wael:

>I feel that the same must be true in the case above. If we decide
>that the 5S bid contains the same information as the hesitation,
>then we should rule that the UI has "disappeared" and there are no
>longer restrictions on the player.
>
>(I'm talking hypothetically here - mind you!)

Richard Hills:

In the case above, there was unexpected UI created by pard's slow
Pass, the unexpected UI did demonstrably suggest that you bid more
rather than less, and after pard's next bid of 5S there were still
two logical alternatives for you - Pass and 7H - on the final round of
the auction.

So my hypothetical argument is that UI from partner, once created,
would only "disappear" if a later bid from partner causes demonstrably
suggested logical alternatives to be identical to the only logical
alternatives.

Perhaps we are only debating semantics.  Perhaps if the 5S call did
indeed show identical values to the previous slow Pass, then 7H would
indeed be the only logical alternative.  Perhaps the real problem is
that a somewhat wide-ranging 5S call was defined as top-of-the-range
by the hesitation on the previous round.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285