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

Volker, I don't understand the problem in your example – can you elaborate?

I like the idea of clarifying this further, but I'm not sure your wording
does that. The problem I see is that the UI could make an action more
strongly attractive than it would have been otherwise, but the action could
still be a standout. Suppose an action rates to win 5 IMPs with no UI and
the UI makes it likely to win 10 IMPs. It's more attractive, but that's not
enough to persuade us to adjust the score. It must have been made
relatively more attractive compared to some other logical action. That
persuades me that we must keep the "unless there is no logical alternative"
as a safe harbor.

I remain to be convinced whether "suggested over another" is potentially
confusing or even harmful. TDs and ACs do not seem to have had much trouble
with that part of the current version.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Volker Walther <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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