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

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?
>

Interesting proposal, Adam.  The first thought of a Bayesian is likely a
wish to name the person or persons who decides the key issues of what "could
demonstrably have been suggested over another" and "there is no logical
alternative."

The passive voice hides the identity of the decider.  I think the short
answer is that the decider is the director.

But the methods of the pair matter to the issue, as does the available
documentation of those methods.  For example, I might choose a different
call based on whether or not I have brought documentation of the relevant
methods we use.

Another case:  If I am pretty sure that the director will say that the
hesitation suggests extra values, but I think it suggest something else,
but the director likely won't agree with, then I should probably assume it
shows extra values.  Agreed?

I sometimes wish I could query the director to find out what he is going to
rule was suggested.

Jerry Fusselman

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