[blml] DeWael School and WBFLC [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Law 72A1 (General Principles - Observance of Laws - General
> Obligation on Contestants):
> 
> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict
> accordance with the Laws."
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
>>> It is impossible to play a duplicate bridge tournament in
>>> strict accordance with the Laws if one is forced to break
>>> a Law.
> 
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> No, only a robot would freeze if the laws were handed to
>> it too strictly ("Runaround" if that tells you anything -
>> I think it does).
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> When I was a teenager in the early 1970s, I read all of
> Isaac Asimov's science fiction short stories and novels.
> "Runaround" was not Asimov's first story in his positronic
> robot series, but it was the first to mention the Three
> Laws of Robotics.
> 
> 1.  A robot may not injure a human being or, through
> inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
> 
> 2.  A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings
> except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
> 
> 3.  A robot must protect its own existence as long as such
> protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
> 
> As Herman has correctly deduced, I believe that the logical
> consequence of Law 72A1 is that the Laws of Duplicate
> Bridge need to be interpreted in an Asimovian exceptional
> style.
> 
> That is, if Law A says, "A player must do such-and-such",
> but is contradicted by Law B, which says, "A player must do
> so-and-so", then Law B should be reinterpreted as meaning,
> "A player must do so-and-so, except when such action would
> conflict with Law A".
> 

Indeed it must, but as with robots, it is not up to the individual to 
do the interpreting. It is up to the lawmakers. The story "runaround" 
deals with a robot whose instructionlist is not yet sufficiently 
"interpreted", hence its running around in circles. The same is true 
of this problem. Since the WBF refuses to clear up the dilemma, 
Richard and Herman end up running circles around one another.

However, unlike robots, Herman and Richard are equipped with 
meta-reasoning, allowing Richard and Herman to devellop strategies 
that allow them to reach a target.

Now only two things remain to be done: the first is for Richard to 
realize that his interpretation is not the only possible one (Herman 
has already done so); the second is for Richard to realize that 
Herman's interpretation is the better one.

What Richard needs to realize however, is that

 > That is, if Law A says, "A player must do such-and-such",
 > but is contradicted by Law B, which says, "A player must do
 > so-and-so", then Law B should be reinterpreted as meaning,
 > "A player must do so-and-so, except when such action would
 > conflict with Law A".
 >

has two solutions: Law A can also be reinterpreted in the same manner 
as Richard suggests Law B to be reinterpreted. You cannot have "law A 
is contradicted by law B" without also having "law B is contradicted 
by law A". The phrase above can be read in both directions, Richard !!


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be