[blml] Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills (previous post):

>>That is, Steve's proposed law change

Steve Willner:

>[that correct answers to opponents' questions should be AI]
>
>Change of interpretation, I think, not Law.

Law 73A1:

"Communication between partners during the auction and play
shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays
themselves."

Richard Hills (current post):

A correct answer to an opponent's question is not a call nor
is it a play.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

Richard Hills (previous post):

>>would mean that the East-West side ...
>>would be in a Catch-22 situation, either:
>>(a) suffering through East's ignorance of the North-South
>>    methods, or
>>(b) suffering through East giving an opponent an AI
>>    reminder of their North-South methods.

Steve Willner:

>And now it's my turn to mention _petitio principii_.  Why
>exactly is this a bad thing?  Or more particularly, why is
>it worse than the alternative?

Richard Hills (current post):

I am a poacher turned gamekeeper as regards weird and wacky
conventions, having played a Highly Unusual Method (HUM)
Forcing Pass system in my youth.

The problem with HUM conventions, or the less-extreme Brown
Sticker conventions, is one of Law 75A disclosure.  No matter
what their intrinsic merits, they gain imps and matchpoints
by novelty value against opponents who have not met them
before.

For example, in 1950s England the then Highly Unusual Method
of the Weak Two gained undeserved successes against opponents
who had previously encountered Acol Twos only.

So Steve's law change idea would give a second benefit to
sides who play wacky conventions.  In addition to surprising
the opponents with novelty, the wacky sides would gain some
insurance against them forgetting the complexities of their
own wacky agreements by permitting pard to AI remind them.

And, of course, no AI reminders need occur if the wacky
conventioneers had Law 75A fully disclosed every one of their
partnership agreements on their system card.  Indeed, the WBF
experimented with a rule some years ago requiring all
partnership agreements to be listed on a specified number of
pages.  Unfortunately this was impossible (even with the
tiniest of font sizes), due to the huge number of possible
auctions and consequent huge number of explicit or implicit
partnership agreements.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm