[bluejak]

Why?

[pran]

bluejak, on May 21 2010, 11:14 PM, said:

Why?

Because I know the room and the conditions where the event took place. There was ample space for each table and good dicipline. With Bridgemates used there was virtually no talking in the room about the boards.

My remark was specifically aimed at this event, not a general comment of course.

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on May 15 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

awm, on May 15 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise.

I realise I'm late to these threads, but I'm very glad to see this remark, blackshoe. 18 months ago I attended an EBU refresher course for TDs on the 2007 Laws, and tried unsuccessfully to make precisely this point (that the wording of L16B1a meant that choosing an "illogical alternative" - ie something that was not a "logical alternative" (which is a term clearly-enough defined in L16B1b) - left one outside the scope of that law): I couldn't get the instructor to see what I was talking about.

I don't want to hijack this thread further, but if anyone could point me to the earlier discussions, where it was evidently established that black meant white, I'd be grateful. I imagine that the rather less precise wording of L16B3 had something to do with it.

It does seem a pity that a law that actually manages to achieve some precision in its wording is then held to mean something contrary to what it actually says, but there you are.

PeterAlan

[dburn]

PeterAlan, on May 22 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

18 months ago I attended an EBU refresher course for TDs on the 2007 Laws, and tried unsuccessfully to make precisely this point (that the wording of L16B1a meant that choosing an "illogical alternative" - ie something that was not a "logical alternative" (which is a term clearly-enough defined in L16B1b) - left one outside the scope of that law): I couldn't get the instructor to see what I was talking about.

Actually (at least in the EBU L&E) it was held that it did not matter whether a player taking an illogical alternative action was in breach of Law 16 or not. If his motive was to increase his expected score on the board, he was in breach of Law 73 because he had failed in his duty not to take any advantage of UI.

In the ACBL, as previously noted, it is now held that any action taken by a player is considered among the LAs for that player.

[bluejak]

This has been discussed many times. But that is no reason not to say it again.

There are various arguments when a player chooses a call not apparently an LA which is suggested by the UI and is successful.

First, some people argue that any call that a player chooses is automatically an LA for that player - or for that class of player - so he has in fact chosen an LA.

Second, there is the argument that since he has breached Law 73 it does not matter whether he has breached Law 16 or not, the adjustment is given anyway.

Third, there is the view that a choice amongst LAs does not necessarily mean the chosen action must be an LA, just that the alternatives are LAs. This particular argument is probably weaker than it used to be owing to slight changes in the actual wording of the Law in the 2007 Laws.

Fourth, there is the "authority" view: it is accepted that one should adjust in this position by the various authorities. Thus an individual TD or AC should do so without worrying too much how or whether this follows the actual wording of the Law.

I have sympathy for the tutors on th EBU Refresher course. In effect they are doing what we generally try to do in these forums, at least in the first three, which is to help people give rulings in line with accepted practice. Just as th first three forums - excluding 'Changing Laws & Regulations' - are not designed for challenging accepted practices, nor really is an EBU Refresher course. It is there to learn to be a better TD.

[PeterAlan]

Thank you, dburn and bluejak, for those additional explanations. As I mentioned, I am new to these forums, and haven't seen the previous "many discussions". I really was doing no more than picking up briefly on blackshoe's earlier comment, and have no intention of pursuing a "change" issue here.

I can see their point - or most of them anyway (I'm going to continue to struggle, bluejak, with the interpretation in your third point, and also with your fourth: after all, it's the laws one has to hand, and not necessarily all the corpus of "authority" which is not so readily accessible. Moreover, the position you expound there is pretty hard to put across to someone who has been ruled against, but who regards themselves as having conformed to the law - "Ignore what it appears to say in the laws, it's this way because they said so on an EBU course I went on").

Of course, it all might have been clearer if the points been advanced on the course, which after all was about explaining where there had been changes to practice and why. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case on the day I was there, but I don't want to leave the impression that this was a dominant issue on the day. Perhaps it might be helpful if they were mentioned in the next revisions of L&E guidance.

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

Oh, no! It is easy enough to explain to a player. Just read out Law 73C, and tell him to follow it in future.