[blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

Hello Richard,

this is an interesting discussion, which is why I want to go through 
your argumentation:

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

> 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.
> 

The definition of UI says nothing about something being _unexpected_. 
I believe your argumentation is false here.

> 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.
> 
> :-)
> 

of course ;)

> 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.
> 

That is just a repeat of the case - nothing new here. Adding the word 
"unexpected" is only useful if that word were of any use. As I say, 
there is no need for UI to be "expected" or not. UI is UI.

> 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.
> 

And that is precisely what I am trying to negate. This is the 
conclusion of your argument, which I am trying to disprove, not some 
starting point. Your premises are wrong (by their use of the word 
"unexpected"), so your conclusion is wrong as well.

If UI can be negated by AI, then this is the case for all UI (expected 
or not), and the end result is that there are not L16 restrictions, 
and all alternatives (suggested or not) are available to the recipient 
of the A/UI.

> 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.
> 

Exactly, and I stand by the decision I helped to form in Warszawa, but 
only because we deemed the UI to be larger than the AI, not because it 
remains even in the presence of AI.

> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/464 - Release Date: 5/10/2006