[blml] Countdown

[Eric Landau]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 8:34 PM, WILLIAM SCHODER wrote:

> If what you say Mr. Landau is that evaluation of players' abilities  
> is not
> relevant to irtational, then I think you are on the right track.

Actually I've been saying that for years -- I believe I can  
rightfully claim to have been the strongest voice in this forum  
objecting to the WBF's reinterpretation of the 1997 footnote to state  
otherwise.  And I will continue to say it when the discussion turns  
to the interpretation of L70E, where the word "irrational" now appears.

But it no longer appears in the footnote.  That raises a new concern:  
not whether a player's ability is relevant to "irrational", but  
whether "irrational" is relevant to L70D and L71, from which the  
refererence to it has been expunged.  Tim's point, as I understand  
it, is that while it may be true that it is no longer relevant to the  
consideration of plays that are careless or inferior, it may remain  
relevant to consideration of plays which are neither (like trump  
squeezes when Mrs. Guggenheim declares).

> From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote:
>>
>>> Eric wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I should ask a different question - does "normal" include
>>>>> the bizarre/inconceivable for the class of player involved?
>>>>
>>>> It would seem to, per the new wording of the footnote.  A play
>>>> can't  be "bizarre/inconceivable" -- or, for that matter,
>>>> "irrational" --  while simultaneously being neither careless nor
>>>> inferior.
>>>
>>> Of course it can.  A trump squeeze might be technically superior
>>> (say 60%
>>> chance of success against 50%) but happens to fail.  It might  
>>> also be
>>> "inconceivable" (ie beyond the wildest improbable dreams of ever  
>>> being
>>> understood/recognised/attempted) by my dear Mrs Guggenheim - who
>>> thought
>>> it obvious that she was simply taking the heart finesse again ("it
>>> worked
>>> the first time dear").
>>>
>>> Hamman wouldn't have claimed in the same position of course - he  
>>> would
>>> have played the trump squeeze out and gone off.
>>
>> Point taken.  I admit I was not thinking in terms of plays that might
>> be bizarrely or inconceivably careful or superior.  Since "normal"
>> includes, in addition to the unarguably normal, the otherwise
>> abnormally careless or inferior, it must exclude the otherwise
>> abnormally careful or superior, else it would include everything.
>> For Mrs. Guggenheim to find a trump squeeze is neither normal nor
>> "normal"; for Mr. Hamman to overlook one is only the latter.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net