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

I was asked on BridgeWinners.com: Suppose a player chooses a call suggested
over another by UI, and neither is a LA? Has anyone come across such a
situation? What would we want the laws to say about it?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> I like that as well. Or:
>
>   "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested
> over a logical alternative by unauthorized information."
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The wording I like: "A player may not choose a call or play that is
>> demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information over a logical
>> alternative."  This connects the "over" directly with "logical
>> alternative"; when West doubled instead of passing, was passing a logical
>> alternative?
>>
>>
>> On 2/6/2017 1:01 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote:
>>
>> A few people pointed out a logical flaw in the "unless there is no
>> logical alternative" text. Here's a new version based on a suggestion by
>> Andy Bowles:
>>
>> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested
>> over another by unauthorized information unless the other call or play is
>> not a logical alternative.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Tim! I like it. Laurie Kelso and I are now working up a proposal
>>> along these lines.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Timothy N. Hill <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016 Jul 12, at 12:44, Adam Wildavsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> … the WBF LC is now considering …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> …, 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Better. Now
>>>>
>>>>    - delete “over another,”
>>>>    - change “could have been” to “is,”
>>>>    - change the preceding clause to a separate paragraph stating that
>>>>    extraneous information from partner is  unauthorized, and
>>>>    - in this clause change “extraneous” to “unauthorized.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How ’bout this?
>>>>
>>>> Extraneous information that may suggest a call or play includes
>>>>  remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected* alerts or
>>>> failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special
>>>> emphasis, tone, gestures, movements, and mannerisms. Extraneous information
>>>> from partner is unauthorized.
>>>>
>>>> A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested
>>>> by unauthorized information from his partner unless there is no logical
>>>> alternative.
>>>>
>>>> A logical alternative is one that a significant proportion of the
>>>> class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would
>>>> seriously consider, and some might select.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>> --
>>>> Timothy N. Hill <[email protected]>
>>>> mobile: +1 781-929-7673 <%2B1%20781-929-7673>, home: +1 781-235-2902
>>>> <%2B1%20781-235-2902>
>>>> 416 Linden Street, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481, USA
>>>> Duplicate Bridge Director
>>>> American Contract Bridge League: <http://acbl.org/>
>>>> Westwood Bridge Club: +1 781-329-2476 <%2B1%20781-329-2476>, <
>>>> http://bridgewebs.com/westwood/>
>>>> Newton Bridge Club: <http://newtonbridge.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing [email protected]://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Grabiner [email protected] (permanent Email; put this in your address book)[email protected] (valid as long as I am with Verizon)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>

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