BGonline.org Forums

Question from nactation study

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Sunday, 13 February 2011, at 6:13 a.m.

In Response To: Question from nactation study (Matt Ryder)

It's a fair question, Matt, and I actually thought of your potential reaction when I wrote that passage.

Currently, there is no written rule that a letter can be unambiguously used beyond the scope of its definition. However, I see no good reason not to write it in, or at least allow it. It would give the inexperienced nactator more options, and from the interpreter's point of view it can be as straightforward as, "If a letter describes only part of a play, apply the greatest number of pips possible to it and to the rest of the play apply the hit/most/6 rule."

In that way, if someone doesn't know C, he can use U for this play, and even if he also doesn't know the 6pt convention, he can get "lucky" that the obvious deuce goes closer to the 6pt without breaking a point than any other deuce. (When I say "lucky," keep in mind that naively applying assumption frequently conveys the same play as the hit/most/6 rule, by design.)

Even if such an interpretation rule is not strictly integrated, it would seem a wasted opportunity not to have it included as an early phase 2 element. As a program inputter, would you rather see U in this case automatically thrown out as invalid (bringing the sequence to a halt), or would you rather have the U flagged as questionable (for optional inspection) while still getting good odds that U is correctly intended to be 24/21 8/6 and the sequence can continue cost-free?

Nack

Messages In This Thread

• Question from nactation study
  Matt Ryder -- Sunday, 13 February 2011, at 5:12 a.m.
  • Question from nactation study
    Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 13 February 2011, at 6:13 a.m.
    • Question from nactation study
      Matt Ryder -- Sunday, 13 February 2011, at 1:30 p.m.
      • Question from Nactation study
        Nack Ballard -- Sunday, 13 February 2011, at 4:19 p.m.