Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)
David Grabiner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is an improvement, because it deals with the situation in which a player chooses an illogical alternative. However, the "unless" makes the logic confusing. I prefer, "The partner may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information." One of the most common examples of an illogical alternative is hesitation Blackwood. North bids 4NT, South shows one key card (which happens to be the SK), North signs off in 5S, and South bids 6S. 6S is an illogical bid, as North's sequence has shown that N-S are off two aces. But pass is certainly a logical alternative, so we adjust if 6S happens to make. On 7/12/2016 12:44 PM, Adam Wildavsky 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? 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 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml