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

Thanks, Eric. I agree completely. May I quote you on BridgeWinners?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Eric Landau <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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