Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)

I see merit in this suggestion, but the probabilist in me can't help
wonder, what if all logical alternatives are demonstrably suggested, but
some more than others?

Perhaps I should instead ask, what is the probabilistic representation of
"demonstrably more suggested?"

I'm not suggesting that the laws employ rigorous probabilistic terminology
to satisfy the likes of me, but I wonder if the procedure you have in mind
is specific enough to be stated in probabilistic terms.

For example, if the two LA's are A and B, what relationship between E[A],
E[B] (the expected returns assuming no UI) E[A|UI], and E[B|UI] requires
the partner who received the UI to choose A?

Jerry Fussselman

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Timothy N. Hill <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Upon further consideration, I think the key sentence would be clarified by
> removing the double negative (“unless … no”) and reordering. I also think
> “may not” should be changed to “must not” (“the strongest prohibition,”
> according to the Introduction).
>
> With those changes, 16B1 could read in full:
>
> Extraneous information that might suggest a call or play includes
>  remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or failures
> to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone,
> gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information from partner is
> unauthorized.
>
> If there is a logical alternative, then a player must not choose a call or
> play that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information from his
> partner.
>
>
> A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the class
> of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would
> seriously consider, and some might select.
>
>
> (16D and 73C could be reworded similarly.)
>
> Tim
>

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml