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

As I think more about it, it seems the principle involved is, in fact, a
negative one, as expressed in 73C:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his
partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism,
undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or
failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that
unauthorized information.

That may be an excellent reason to retain the negative injunction in
16Bb1(a).

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> I prefer positive pronouncements to negative ones in any prose, so we
> agree to that extent. How would you apply that principle here?
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, r pewick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Wildavsky
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:44 AM
>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am thinking that where a player must use judgment, it is unsatisfactory
>> to
>> command him what not to do; rather, it is important to tell him what to
>> do.
>> As Burn says, it is a bit difficult to prove a negative; and such
>> difficulty
>> is an undue strain upon the player.
>>
>> It is noticeable that an offense is judged by different specifications
>> depending upon the point of view.  This existence of non sequiturs is not
>> good foundation for lawmaking.
>>
>> regards
>> roger pewick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>
>

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