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

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

I like the idea of an agreed procedure, even if just a thought experiment.
It looks like a stroke of clarity to me.

I would like the methods of the pair to be mentioned somehow.

In all of these proposals, there has been little or no discussion of what
to do for close calls.  For example, using Nigel's practical procedure,
what would he do if the ordinal ranking with UI treated as AI only
increased the average rank from 2.4 to 2.3?  Would that be enough to rule
guilty of UI use?

But I worry about the following case that could be a fatal flaw with
Nigel's suggestion.  For simplicity, suppose an LA option falls from
unanimous first to unanimous last.  Shouldn't that be the required action?
Any other action he may take is comparatively suggested by the UI.  With
this example, the use-the-average-ranking idea looks wrong.  Yes, it seems
clear, but not right in all cases.

So I think I like the protocol, except that I don't think the decision
metric can be improved.

Jerry Fusselman

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