[blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

[Analogies with Copernicus snipped]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> 
> The bedrock principle of the De Wael School is this:
> 
> "Creating new UI is a greater evil.  Creating new MI is a
> lesser evil.  Therefore, in cases where you have to do one or
> the other, create new MI."
> 

Please add: In addition, in true DwS cases there is no "new" MI to be 
created. There is not even a choice between two evils!

> While the bedrock principle of the Majority School is this:
> 
> "Using UI is an evil.  Creating new MI is an evil.  These two
> principles can never clash, so what's the problem?  By the
> way, it is permissible to create new UI as a necessary
> consequence of truthfully answering a Law 75C question."
> 
> Parsing the Lawbook alone cannot prove which of the Majority
> School or the De Wael School is correct.  

Thank you.

> But the analogy to
> Galileo's telescope is this WBF Code of Practice clause.
> 
> WBF Code of Practice, page 7:
> 
>>> A player who, without design, makes unauthorized
>>> information available to his partner does not commit an
>>> infraction of law or propriety; it is the use of that
>>> information that is a breach of the laws.
> 

_Without Design_

It is my contention that a player who answers "truthfully", while he 
could easily "lie" (I even use your words, not mine) gives UI _with 
design_.
In particular, the player knows he is breaking Law 75D2, and he 
decides (knowingly) to do so. Especially if he has thought this 
through, like any blml'er has. Other players may get away with this, 
but someone of Richard's stature knows he is breaking L75D2, and that 
he does so _with design_.

I therefore do not acknowledge that this sentence of the CoP has any 
bearing on our discussion.

> Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007:
> 
>>> ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player
>>> answers a question that the laws require him to answer.
>>>                                        ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 
> 
> Epper si muove
> 

I never said she did not.

What is this logical phallacy called:
Richard compares his point of view with Copernicus', and Herman's with 
Ptolemy's. Since Ptolemy has been proven wrong, Herman must be wrong 
as well.
I think Richard has the older point of view, mine is the more novel 
one. Ergo, Mine is like Copernicus', ergo it must be true.

Epper si muove!


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html