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

Here's what the WBF LC is now considering:

Current:

…, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that
could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous
information.

Proposed:

…, the partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have
been suggested over another by the extraneous information unless there is
no logical alternative.

Is it clearer? At least as clear? Any further changes to suggest?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther <[email protected]> wrote:

> Am 04.02.2012 19:41, schrieb Robert Frick:
> > On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:15:33 -0500, Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Current wording:
> >>
> >> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information
> that
> >> may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a
> >> reply
> >> to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by
> >> unmistakable
> >> hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement,
> or
> >> mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives
> one
> >> that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the
> >> extraneous
> >> information.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is at best difficult to understand. I remember seeing a proposed
> >> revision here on BLML, eight years ago or so, that would retain the
> >> current
> >> meaning while using clearer language. Can anyone supply a pointer, or
> >> perhaps try a hand at your own rewrite? If I can find something that
> >> improves on the current version I'll do my best to have it incorporated
> >> into the 2017 laws.
> >
> > If a player has extraneous information from partner, and if that
> > extraneous information suggests an action, the player may not select the
> > suggested action if he has a logical alternative not suggested (or less
> > suggested) by the extraneous information.
> >
>
> I like the switch from "call or play" to "action".
> Recently I had the following case:
> Against a 4S Contract, played by South, East LOOT the KH from Kx.
> (West had preempted with 3H).
> South had Qx, North Ax in Heart.
> North said, he would like to accept the LOOT.
>
> We had a long discussion wether any limitations for south arose from
> this remark. This would have been much easier with your wording.
>
> Greetings, Volker Walther
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

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