[blml] Protect with 2 HCP?

[Adam Beneschan]

Eric wrote:
 
> On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:29 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> 
> > Hirsch Davis:
> >
> >>> The role of the AI is to help define what would be considered a LA.
> >>> Even if the UI provides no information that is not available by AI,
> >>> the restrictions of L16 still apply.
> >
> > Sven Pran:
> >
> >> Quite so. (If there are alternatives)
> >
> > Richard Hills:
> >
> > **If** authorised information is **identical to** unauthorised
> > information, **then** I agree with Herman De Wael's position in the
> > October 2006 thread "Positronic brain" that Law 16 does not apply.
> >
> > Herman's point, with which I agree, is if an "AI electron" meets its
> > anti-particle, a "UI positron", then the two particles annihilate
> > each other, so therefore there is zero residual Law 16 extraneous
> > information outstanding.
> >
> > A simpler way of looking at it, without the metaphor, is to ask the
> > question, "How can partner give you Law 16 extraneous information if
> > you already have that information?"
> 
> That's almost the right question, but the real right question would  
> use the language of L16A, thus: "How can partner make available to  
> you L16 extraneous information if you already have that  
> information?"  The answer to that is that he cannot.  In English, the  
> phrase "to make available" uses "make" with the meaning of "to cause  
> to become" [AHD].  You cannot, by definition, "make[] available to  
> [your] partner extraneous information..." if that information was  
> already available to your partner prior to your action.  AHD (The  
> American Heritage Dictionary) uses the phrase "to make public" as an  
> example of this grammatical construction.

I haven't been following this thread at all.  But just looking at this
post: it seems that your argument would break down in cases where your
partner makes UI available to you---and the same information becomes
available through AI *after* you receive the UI.  I think there are
certainly cases like that, although I'm too busy to try to construct
one off the top of my head....

...on second thought, isn't the case in question just such an example?
LHO opens 1NT.  Partner hitches and passes.  At that point, you don't
have any AI that partner has a good hand, and you have UI that he
might.  RHO then passes, and *now* you have the AI from RHO's failure
to make at least a game invitation.  Or am I thinking about a
different thread?  My apologies if this is way off base, since I
haven't been following this at all and haven't attempted to go back
and read previous e-mails.

But it would seem that if you have information from UI that is also
available from AI, then your rights and restrictions are the same
regardless of whether you got the UI or the AI first.

                                -- Adam