[blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:

> Steve Willner:
> 
> 
>>I think this is a fairly rare situation, though.
> 
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> I agree that UI completely identical to AI is rare.
> 

The situation we disagree upon may well be very rare.
But there are many situations that we (and all the TD's around the 
world) agree upon, but which you don't acknowledge as being of this 
same type. Just think of all the correct explanations (which ARE UI) 
if you don't believe me.

> Steve Willner:
> 
> 
>>If the UI doesn't alter anyone's choice, why does
>>it suggest A over B?
> 
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> But this question is not rare.
> 
> Many players ask, "I was always going to choose the
> logical alternative of bidding 4S, so why should my
> receipt of UI from partner mean that my score is
> adjusted to reflect a choice of the other logical
> alternative of passing pard's slooow double of 4H?"
> 

Now these are not the cases we are talking of. The slow double is UI, 
but there is no AI that provides the same information. So of course we 
need to rule, and if we think that passing is a LA, then we rule against.

This slooow double shows doubt, and that is UI. There is no other 
information which also shows the doubt.

In the original (the dutch 7H from Warsaw) the long hesitation showed 
a better hand than normal. But the 5S bid also showed a (much) better 
hand than normal. The first is UI, the second is AI. I believe that 
this AI negates the effects of the UI, and the partner becomes free to 
act again.

Just to remain consequent, I stand by the AC decision that in the 
actual case, the UI was bigger than the AI, but as a general 
principle, other rulings are possible.

> :-)
> 

no need to :) - it's all very serious!



-- 
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