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

I applaud Adam’s attempt to clarify laws.  

The passive tense,  sophisticated wording (e.g. “demonstrably”),  the subtle nuances implied by the WBF graded use of modal verbs (e.g.” should”, “must”, “may”, “may not”), and indeterminate  fudging e.g. “could” combine to  undermine clarification attempts.

UI rulings on simple basic cases with agreed facts  split discussion groups down the middle, however,  so it’s obvious that drastic clarification is needed.

I think rule-makers should radically simplify the rules of Bridge. .They should try to spell out what they mean in simple practical  terms, that players can understand.  

Below is my suggestion to explain  the UI decision process (FWIW – so far it has attracted ridicule)

1. The director asks pollees which options they consider.
2. The director collates suggested calls into a list.
3. He adds the call, actually chosen, if not already present, to the list.
4. The pollees rank the list of calls in order of preference.
5. Now the TD tells pollees about the UI. He asks them to pretend it‘s AI. He asks them to re-order the list in that light
6. The director judges the player guilty of using UI, if the player's chosen call ascends in the average rankings.
7. If this protocol is impractical, the director can still use it as the basis of a thought-experiment.

An even simpler solution is to make Bridge a timed game (e.g. You must wait 5 seconds before taking an action and complete it within 10 seconds).

Anyway, good luck with the your work. IMO, it’s urgently needed.  

Regards, Nigel
[email protected]
+447578626916

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