Help
One other point that has just occurred to me. 16B1(b) defines a logical alternative as:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]
This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.
What 16B1(b) should say is:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
Without this change, one has to push even more adjustments through 73C. And apologies for including a brief comment which belongs in "changing laws and regulations", before a moderator threatens to move it.
Double entendre UI from both sides - England
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,442
- Joined: 2007-October-15
Posted 2011-June-02, 04:06
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
#22
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 879
- Joined: 2009-July-29
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-June-02, 05:42
lamford, on 2011-June-02, 04:06, said:
One other point that has just occurred to me. 16B1(b) defines a logical alternative as:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]
This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.
What 16B1(b) should say is:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
Without this change, one has to push even more adjustments through 73C. And apologies for including a brief comment which belongs in "changing laws and regulations", before a moderator threatens to move it.
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]
This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.
What 16B1(b) should say is:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
Without this change, one has to push even more adjustments through 73C. And apologies for including a brief comment which belongs in "changing laws and regulations", before a moderator threatens to move it.
I think what is being demonstrated is that in an attempt to have the concept of LA work it is necessary to contort everybody in an ungodly manner.
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,165
- Joined: 2009-July-15
Posted 2011-June-02, 07:44
lamford, on 2011-June-02, 04:06, said:
One other point that has just occurred to me. 16B1(b) defines a logical alternative as:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]
This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.
What 16B1(b) should say is:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. [My emphasis]
This is just wrong, isn't it? In our example, the methods of the partnership were that Pass of 4H showed a weak two in diamonds, except that North is deemed not to remember that. Clearly the only LA for a North with these methods is 5D, but we disallow it, perhaps illegally.
What 16B1(b) should say is:
<snip> one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership believed at the time by the person with UI, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.
Clearly the definition in the laws doesn't compute when the UI is precisely an unauthorised reminder of the agreed methods of the partnership. I don't think we have so much of a problem working that out for ourselves, and what to do about it. For further assistance, there is plenty of authority on this fairly common situation. For once, I think it is obvious enough I'd prefer to leave the law as it is, rather than confusing the general case with some contorted rewriting to cover this situation.