Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16B1(a)

For instance 16B1a tells what the player may not do:

, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

What does choose from among mean?  Let us say that the player does not choose from among, but only considers from one action.  Has he satisfied the law?  Certainly.

Thus, at 16B3, what does if he considers that an infraction mean?  As written it applies to any infraction performed at any time.  There is no relation to 16B1a- as in this case, where the player satisfied the requirement.

Such  is  a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said:  A non sequitur.

Now, as you would have the law read, you require that the player make use of UI in selecting his action.  To make the vernacular clear, you require him to cheat in order to satisfy the law.  And I submit that it rubs  a lot of people the wrong way; it is just that they are not equipped to explain it because they don't understand why it rubs them wrong.  That outcome is a long litany of problems on discussion groups.

As for offering an alternative, I have done so a very long time ago to Kojak and Endicott.  I am quite certain it visited file 13.

regards
roger pewick




-----Original Message----- 
From: Adam Wildavsky 
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:47 PM 
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [BLML] Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a) 


Can you explain what you mean by non-sequiturs? I don't think I follow. Even better, please suggest an improvement.


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