Re: Wanted: Alternate wording for Law 16Bb1(a)
Eric Landau <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 02/07/17 1:22 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > 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? "Logical" here modifies "alternative". Whether or not the call actually chosen is "logical" doesn't matter; it is only the "alternatives" to it that are constrained. It's there to limit the adjudicator's choices of presumed alternative actions. If you have UI that partner would prefer you to pass his 3S bid than raise it to game, you also have UI that he would prefer a pass to a 7NT bid, but if you gain by passing we adjust your score to the result in 4S (a logical alternative to pass) rather than in 7NT (not). Note that "gain by passing" is objective; the "logicalness" of the pass doesn't matter. Eric Landau Silver Spring MD New York NY _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml