[blml] Positronic brain

[Herman De Wael]

Steve Willner wrote:
> From: Herman De Wael <herman at hdw.be>
> 
>>You give the auction, without UI, to a 
>>number of players. 3 choose alternative A, 1 chooses B. That means 
>>that B is a LA. You now add the UI, and all four tell you that it does 
>>not alter their choice, even if they wanted to cheat. You would rule 
>>against this pair, I wouldn't.
> 
> 
> If the UI doesn't alter anyone's choice, why does it suggest A over B? 

Because it does. That's possible, isn't it?
And I did not say the I did not influence the choice, only that it did 
not alter the choice. Because there is AI also present which suggests 
A over B.

> If it does suggest that, then yes, I will rule against the player who 
> chooses A.  That's what the Laws seem to me to require.
> 

And yet we don't rule that way. Not in the cases where the UI tells 
the player nothing new. As in the case of an expected alert or correct 
information given by partner. Or in the case of a long hesitation at a 
moment when such can be expected.

Say they open 5C in first hand, and your partner thinks for 30". UI, 
yes, but is this not as can be expected? And do we not have AI to the 
same effect: partner is flabbergasted at the height of the opening.

> I think this is a fairly rare situation, though.
> 

I don't think it is.
Or rather - the simple cases are very common, but you believe them to 
be so common that you don't see that they are in fact examples of this 
"rare situation".


-- 
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: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 7/10/2006