[blml] Protect with 2 HCP?

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Willner" <willner at cfa.harvard.edu>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Protect with 2 HCP?


>> From: "Hirsch Davis" <hirsch9000 at verizon.net>
>> In the introduction to L16, extraneous information refers to knowledge 
>> that
>> comes to a player through means other than legal calls or plays or
>> mannerisms of an opponent.
>
> On closer look, I think you will find that "extraneous information" is
> undefined.  The text _excludes_ legal calls and plays and mannerisms of
> opponents from EI, but it doesn't specifically _include_ anything.
>
> As I wrote in the previous message, L16 is not the only Law in TFLB.
>
> As I've written before, I think L16 would be improved if it stated that
> only information about unseen cards can ever be UI.  However, you would
> be unwise to bet that the WBFLC will share my opinion.
>

The first sentence of the intro to L16 defines a set. Actually, the word 
"extraneous" appears to be redundant with the word "other" in the second 
sentence; however, it seems clear that the phrase "other extraneous" in the 
second sentence means something not belonging to the set defined in the 
first sentence. Also note that 16A refers only to extraneous information, 
not unauthorized information.  That would make 16A senseless unless the 
meaning given to "extraneous" in the introduction were applied. A 
non-comprehensive set of examples of extraneous information is given in 16A 
for clarity.

My guess is that the vagueness is deliberate.  There are a finite and 
well-defined set of methods to deliver AI, but the means of delivering UI 
are multiple and not as easily categorized, and an attempt to define UI more 
explicitly than "anything not AI" is doomed to fail in strange and 
unexpected ways.

With regard to improving L16 do you mean that as a defender, I should be 
allowed make a remark such as "look at that unsupported king of diamonds in 
Dummy, partner"? The phrase conveys information about cards that are fully 
visible, so by your definition it would become AI.  I don't think so...

Hirsch Davis