[blml] The new L27C2

[Wayne Burrows]

On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote:
>
> > On 21/02/2008, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:43 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 15/02/2008, Robert Geller <geller at nifty.com> wrote:
> >>>> Now I'm really confused by L27C1
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's look at L27C1 again......
> >>>> *************************************************
> >>>> C. Replaced at Lowest Level by Bid, Double or Pass
> >>>> 1. If the insufficient bid is replaced by a bid at the lowest legal
> >>>> level or double or pass that incorporates the information
> >>>> contained in
> >>>> the insufficient bid, the auction and play continues ....<snip>
> >>>> *************************************************
> >>>>
> >>>> OK, next let's look at the definition of incorporates.
> >>>> v.t.
> >>>> 1. to combine with something already formed
> >>>> 2. to merge into a single whole
> >>>> v.i.
> >>>> 1. to unite or compbine into a single whole.
> >>>>
> >>>> As an example, New York City (the larger entity) incorporates
> >>>> the boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten
> >>>> Island
> >>>> (five smaller entities).    Or another:  the motor vehicle market
> >>>> incorporates the markets for cars, trucks, busses
> >>>> motorcycles,......
> >>>>
> >>>> L27C1 says the replacement bid must "incorporate the information
> >>>> contained in the IB."   This means the replacement call must be
> >>>> consistent with  ("incorporate") any possible hand consistent
> >>>> with the IB.   For example, after
> >>>> N       E       S
> >>>> 1C      (1S)    1H
> >>>> if the IB is replaced by 2H this violates L27C1 because 2H does not
> >>>> incorporate a hand with only 4 hearts.   OTH if the IB is replaced
> >>>> by NEGx this also violates L27C1, because 1H might have been
> >>>> 5+hearts with 10+ points, and this is not incorporated in the NEGx.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think this is what incorporates means here.
> >>>
> >>> A more restrictive 2H may incorporate everything in a less
> >>> restrictive
> >>> 1H.  It matters not that 1H is 4+ and 2H is 5+.  The information 5
> >>> + is
> >>> incorporated in the informations 4+.
> >>>
> >>> Similarly the information exactly four hearts or 5+ hearts and 10+
> >>> points is all included in the information 4+ hearts and 5/6+ hcp.
> >>>
> >>> There may be other reasons why we would disallow these corrections.
> >>> But the reasons you cite do not seem to be sufficient to disallow
> >>> these replacement bids.
> >>
> >> Obviously the language in question is very confusing; here Wayne
> >> attempts to contradict Robert's understanding, but actually restates
> >> it.  Both are stating things backwards.
> >>
> >> "The information 5+ is incorporated in the information[] 4+" would
> >> mean that if you know that partner has 4+ then you also know that he
> >> has 5+.  It is the other way around.
>
> "Very confusing" is looking like a severe underbid.  Obviously the
> language in question is even more confusing than that.
>
> > You have a completely different understanding of information to
> > what I have.
>
> Apparently.
>
> > 4+ is not more information than 5+.
>
> Correct.
>
> > 5+ is more restrictive therefore has more information.
>
> Correct.
>
> > The information 4+ is equivalent to the information exactly 4 or 5+.
>
> "4+" and "exactly 4 or 5+" are indeed equivalent, but they are not
> "information".  They are "definition".  "I hold 4+ hearts" and "I
> hold either exactly 4 or 5+ hearts" are also equivalent, and they
> *are* "information".
>
> > By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the
> > information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+.
>
> The *definition* "5+" is incorporated in the definition "4+".  But
> the *information* -- see above -- is incorporated the other way
> around.  See Alain's explanation of a couple of weeks ago, with his
> "mammals" example.  So this last statement is backwards.
>
> > This also seems to me to be exactly what I would expect a law to
> > allow.
>
> The substitution of 2H for 1H *is* exactly what the law allows.  The
> law requires that the *information* from the IB ("I hold 4+ hearts")
> be incorporated in the information from the replacement bid ("I hold 5
> + hearts"), and it is.  For brevity we may say that "4+ is
> incorporated in 5+", but can do so only because we know from the
> context (L27C1) that we are talking about information, not about
> definition, which work in opposite directions with respect to
> "incorporation".
>
> > As then there is no additional information that would further
> > restrict that hands from the insufficient bid.
>
> Correct.  If the information from the IB "would further restrict" the
> hands the IBer could hold, that *would* be additional information,
> hence not "incorporated", and the substitution would not be allowed.
> But "4+" adds no additional information to "5+" -- equivalent to "'4
> +' is incorporated in the information '5+'" -- so we allow it.
>
> Wayne seems to draw the right conclusions about what the law allows,
> but expresses his reasoning in words opposite to those in the law's
> description of what it allows.  As Wayne has demonstrated in the past
> that he is not in the least bit stupid, he has convinced me that his
> confusion must be blamed on the language of the law.
>

I have to admit when I first read this law I thought it was backwards.
 But then on a more careful reading it seemed right to me.

After reading Eric's posts I started to think that I was really
confused afterall.

So I decided to look through this again this afternoon.

It appears I twice wrote "is incorporated in" when I should have
written simply "incorporates".  These are the offending sentences:

"The information 5+ is incorporated in the informations 4+."

and

"By breaking the information up in this way you can see that the
information 5+ is incorporated in the information 4+."

My arguments are that 'the information in 5+ incorporates the
information in 4+". I think I understood this in my mind while
carelessly writing the opposite in the two offending sentences which
were also the opposite of the rest of my arguments.

Let me try one more time:

The information contain in 4+ is essentially "not 0-3". The
information contained in the replacement bid 5+ incorporates "not 0-3"
and includes the additional information "not exactly 4".  This sort of
relationship between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid is
what is allowed by the new law.

Wayne