Re: ??

As suggested by Gordon Rainsford I had a look at the Bridge Winners webpage. An interesting hypothetical argument was posed there.

During an auction one partner bids 3NT. From the other partner's point of view Pass = 40%, Bid 1 = 30% and Bid 2 = 30%. So all three calls are deemed to be logical alternatives. At the table Bid 1 was selected, and it was the only successful call. However, UI altered the odds. After the UI Pass = 0%, Bid 1 = 50% and Bid 2 = 50%. But did the player call illegally, given that the successful Bid 1 was not demonstrably suggested over the unsuccessful Bid 2?

Yes, the UI made Pass the only legal call (and if Pass had serendipitously been the only successful call, then for a Law-abiding player virtue would have been rewarded). This is because the Drafters of the 2017 Lawbook carefully reworded Law 16B1(a):

"A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 18 Dec 2017, at 10:44 PM, Gordon Rainsford <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> It might make more sense for those who are interested to go to the discussions that have already taken place. 
> The main ones are https://bridgewinners.com/ and http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/forum/56-international-bridge-laws-forum-iblf/
> We also have an EBU forum at https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/ which, although aimed at EBU club directors, welcomes constructive and practical input from anyone. For those who are EBL directors there is also an EBL TD forum.
> 
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, José Júlio Curado <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bring a couple of them here, Gordon, if you find anything interesting
>> 
>>> On 16 December 2017 at 15:00, Gordon Rainsford <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> There’s been plenty of discussion about the new laws in various other forums.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Richard Hills
>>> Sent: 16 December 2017 06:42
>>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] ??
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> My opinion about the lack of traffic on this mailing list nowadays is that there are not any meaningful ambiguities in the 2017 Lawbook. But in the Good Old Days the 1997 Lawbook was infested with ambiguities, thus providing fertile ground for interminable discussions.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Richard Hills
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> > On 16 Dec 2017, at 4:18 AM, a.witzen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > Nobody posts problems
>>> 
>>> > Regards anton
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > Verzonden vanaf Samsung-tablet.
>>> 
>>> > A.witzen, boniplein 86 amsterdam
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht --------
>>> 
>>> > Van: Jeff Easterson <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>> > Datum: 15-12-2017 17:36 (GMT+01:00)
>>> 
>>> > Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>> > Onderwerp: [BLML] ??
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > I haven't received any notifications from blml for about 10 days.  Is
>>> 
>>> > that due to my computer or you?  Ciao,  JE
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> > Blml mailing list
>>> 
>>> > [email protected]
>>> 
>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>> 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> > Blml mailing list
>>> 
>>> > [email protected]
>>> 
>>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> 
>>> [email protected]
>>> 
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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