[blml] Positronic brain

[Herman De Wael]

Eric tries to get around to agreeing with me without actually doing 
so, but I believe he is painting himself (and us) into a corner.

Eric Landau wrote:

> At 04:48 AM 10/9/06, Herman wrote:
> 
> 
>>richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
> 
> 
> I think Herman is making the semantic error (for which I blame not 
> Herman, but TFLB, which is far from precise in its use of the terms) of 
> treating "unauthorized information" as a synonym for "extraneous 
> information".  But L16A ("Extraneous Information from Partner") 1 
> ("When Such Information Is Given") tells us that it is not; it allows 
> "the opponents" to "dispute the fact that unauthorized information 
> might have been conveyed", which means that "extraneous information" 
> may be "given" without "unauthorized information [having] been conveyed".
> 

Eric tries to treat some pieces of UI as EI and therefor not 
unauthorized. But I believe he is wrong. OK, the lawbook names some 
things Extraneous Information, but only in describing some things, of 
which it then continues to say that they are either authorized or 
unauthorized.

Nowhere in L16 does it say that some pieces of extraneous information 
are authorized. So by calling the things we are talking of (correct 
alerts and explanations and such) as "extraneous" information does not 
help us. L16 continues to define these as UI, and yet we don't rule 
against players who hear their partners explain correctly.

Maybe the lawbook is deficient in this regard (no, certainly), but 
that does not mean that we need to make even stranger constructions in 
order to rule as we have done:
UI which is also available to the player as AI does not carry L16 
restrictions.
Which is a sensible and easy way of saying this.

> Once we recognize that it is possible to receive "extraneous" 
> information from partner without any "unauthorized" information having 
> been conveyed, correct explanations of the partnership's methods would 
> seem to be an obvious example of this.
> 

Sadly, L16 does not tell us that some EI carries no AI.

> Other examples of EI from partner which do not convey UI might include, 
> for example, his estimate of the partnership's current score, or his 
> evaluation of the strength of the opponents.
> 
> It is critical to recognize, however, that the manner in which 
> "authorized" EI is transmitted may convey UI by its means or manner of 
> transmission, as opposed to its content.  "We're vul, pard" 
> is  harmless EI when you're pulling the cards out of the board, but 
> will certainly convey UI when partner is in a huddle over a high-level 
> decision.  That doesn't make the vulnerability itself -- or "all the 
> correct explanations" themselves -- UI.
> 

This goes without saying and does not add anything to the discussion 
at hand.

-- 
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