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

Why do we need “extraneous” with its own definition and explanation in 16A3?
Are two terms for UI needed?
73C uses UI not extraneous info and 75A 
Jan


From: Richard Hills 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [BLML] 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 <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 <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
    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

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