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

Adam Wildavsky:

.....Any further changes to suggest?

Richard Hills:

"Logical alternative" is a misnomer, since many non-experts (e.g. myself)
choose illogical calls.  Perhaps change to "justified alternative"?

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 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?
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Volker Walther <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>
>

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