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

Sorry for starting this old thread again:

I think another difficult part is "suggested over another"

Suppose you make a poll:
In absence of UI 32% of the players vote for choosing A, 33% for B and
34% for C.
Given the UI 0% vote A, 45% B, 55% C.

None of the LAs has been suggested over another by the UI so choosing B
or C is OK?.

What about:
...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that
demonstrably became more attractive by the UI.

Greetings, Volker






Am 12.07.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Adam Wildavsky:
> 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]
> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 


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