[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-16, 07:27, said:

Why does every one forget that the law reads "could demonstrably have been suggested"?

I don't forget it, but I intentionally disregard the world "could", because I have no idea what the sentence as written is supposed to mean.

[barmar]

The point of polling is that we recognize that the TD may not be able to determine accurately what a particular class of players might do. The hope is that the answers to the poll will fill in this gap. The TD is certainly allowed to use his judgement in deciding what people might do, but if he bothers to take the poll it seems like he should give the results significant weight. If no one actually chooses an action, that's a strong suggestion that none might. But if the poll is small, it's certainly not definitive.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-15, 08:44, said:

Because the law's phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". At least, that's what Grattan Endicott told me well before the 2007 laws were promulgated. I would have thought that if that's what was meant, the drafting committee would have changed the wording, and but obviously they didn't.

gnasher, on 2013-May-16, 11:12, said:

I don't forget it, but I intentionally disregard the world "could", because I have no idea what the sentence as written is supposed to mean.

IMO, currently, rule-makers lean towards complexity and sophistication. When they come to prefer simplicity and clarity they may instead write something like "the partner should not choose an action if another plausible action is less suggested by the extraneous information".

[mycroft]

Hahahahahaha you are so funny.

If you want complexity and sophistication, read wargaming (especially Ameritrash, AH-style) rules, or, maybe, the Comprehensive Rules of M:tG (not the card rulings, that's a separate issue).

The problem with the current Law book is that it's nowhere near complex nor sophisticated enough, and as such there are several edge cases that are not covered, and some that are only explained through case law - which is not formally recorded (as in the Laws of Golf, for instance). Some of that some of the NBOs are doing; some of it some are not.

This particular case is a result of "if it hesitates, shoot it". We've gone from reasonably to demonstrably suggested, and we've gone to this ACBL definition of LA from no definition (which I will realize damages other NBOs who had used a different LA definition). I think it's right to not have a number defined (remember all the arguments years ago about whether someone was arguing that the suggested action was 75% without the UI, and therefore should be allowed, instead of "carefully attempting to avoid" using the information?); I think the guidelines should be reasonable, and should be read as if both clauses were relevant (rather than attempting to make one or the other superfluous).

We also had the argument in the ACBL casebooks that zero is "some number". That got the answer it deserved.

I am quite certain that there are calls that "everybody" would have to think about before rejecting, but that "everybody" would reject. Can't bring one to mind at the moment, of course.

I'm not suggesting that "nobody in the poll did it, so 'some number' is invalidated"; but I am saying that if nobody in the poll did it, and it was a reasonable poll, the TD had better be convinced that people would take it if she wants to argue it's still a LA (of the "wow, I can't believe nobody took it. Can I book a money game against these guys?" variety). It may still be overturned on appeal, of course.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-May-17, 09:41, said:

If you want complexity and sophistication, read wargaming (especially Ameritrash, AH-style) rules,

Is "AH" short for Aguahombre, or for the more common term? Or both.

[blackshoe]

Avalon Hill, I think. A wargame publisher.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-May-16, 11:09, said:

I think that the wording is intended to cater for an action which would be seriously considered, but unanimously rejected as a result of this consideration.

If the wording was "of whom it is judged some would select it", I would agree with you. But the wording is "of whom it is judged some might select it". If they give the call "serious consideration", then there must be a chance, however small, that they might select it. I think the wording should be "of whom it is judged some would select it", but that is a separate matter.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2013-May-17, 09:41, said:

Hahahahahaha you are so funny. If you want complexity and sophistication, read wargaming (especially Ameritrash, AH-style) rules, or, maybe, the Comprehensive Rules of M:tG (not the card rulings, that's a separate issue). The problem with the current Law book is that it's nowhere near complex nor sophisticated enough, and as such there are several edge cases that are not covered, and some that are only explained through case law - which is not formally recorded (as in the Laws of Golf, for instance). Some of that some of the NBOs are doing; some of it some are not.

Players like me would prefer rules simple enough for us to understand although I accept that rule-makers and directors may share mycrofts view that the current Law book isn't complex or sophisticated enough. We would all probably agree with mycroft, however, that some appeals-decisions should be recognised as paradigms for case-law.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-May-18, 18:43, said:

Players like me would prefer rules simple enough for us to understand although I accept that rule-makers and directors may share mycrofts view that the current Law book isn't complex or sophisticated enough.

Well. It is clear that many of the current Laws are ambiguous or incomplete. What everyone would like is to have far fewer discussions about how to interpret and apply the Laws. I am guessing that in mycroft's opinion, a book that sensibly covers virtually all cases would be more complex and sophisticated. This may be the case, depending on how you look at it, since more detail could be considered more complex, and non-ambiguous language that says what it means, rather than the opposite, could be considered more sophisticated.

[aguahombre]

What color would that book be?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-18, 20:12, said:

What color would that book be?

I don't care, as long as it's sparkly.

[aguahombre]

Orange and white are taken. Emerald green comes to mind.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-18, 20:43, said:

Orange and white are taken. Emerald green comes to mind.

I think that keeping it red is fine. I am not sure what your references to the Orange and White books are apropos of. The Orange Book is a book of EBU regulations and has little to do with the Laws. The White Book does have some examples of applying the Laws, but interpretation is left to WBF minutes, consensus on forums such as this and among top-level directors, and often to the individual director on the ground. None of these are widely disseminated, and none but the first are reliable.

The Laws should be written in normal, intelligible English (indeed, the abtruse and convoluted usage causes problems with translations into other languages). The Laws should say what they are supposed to mean, and not require "interpretation", sometimes to the extent that the Law is understood to be the opposite of what is written. The Laws should, above all, conform to what is generally agreed to be a sensible way to rule the game.

I gather that you disagree with the above. Each to his own.

[blackshoe]

Write it in Loglan.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-18, 21:32, said:

The Laws should be written in normal, intelligible English (indeed, the abtruse and convoluted usage causes problems with translations into other languages). The Laws should say what they are supposed to mean, and not require "interpretation", sometimes to the extent that the Law is understood to be the opposite of what is written. The Laws should, above all, conform to what is generally agreed to be a sensible way to rule the game.

I gather that you disagree with the above. Each to his own.

You have correctly interpreted "snide". But, I agree with every word of that paragraph above. What you describe are laws the way they should be organized and worded, so that players and directors know what they are. Another book to explain the wording and put the various laws into context with one another is not the answer. Such book should be written by the lawmakers, not by alleged authorities on what the lawmakers meant. And because of this, they should just make the laws themselves intelligible.

Unfortunately, that won't happen. They have made it clear that they will not be doing a major reorganization or revamp. A simple example is when we must look in a section regarding the play of the hand to find any mention of aids to memory or technique ---which should apply to bidding as well.

When we learned how to write procedural manuals, we found that an 8th grade (American 8th grade--not very sophisticated) language level was sufficient to get the job done as long as the words were chosen carefully and a general outline was adhered to, with everything in its place and a place for everything.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2013-May-16, 10:24, said:

In the other thread, it seemed likely from the comments that some of those who mentioned Pass as an option "might select it". Whether they did so is therefore not the test. It does not say "did select it".

It can't say "did select it" because we are dealing with hypotheticals.

From the White Book:

Quote

If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD should next
decide whether some would actually choose it.
Again the Laws do not specify a figure for “some”, and the TD should assume that it
means more than just an isolated exception.
If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is
not an LA.
Serious consideration is more than a passing thought.

You seem to believe that the law-makers have introduced an extra sentence for no purpose other than to confuse, and that the law should be read as though that sentence were not there. I believe that it is simple to understand the law as written, and my understanding is consistent with the way our regulating authority explicitly tells us to understand it.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-May-19, 02:24, said:

You seem to believe that the law-makers have introduced an extra sentence for no purpose other than to confuse, and that the law should be read as though that sentence were not there.

No, I think that the Law should say "it is judged that some would select it", which is the way that it is interpreted, and the way English TDs are advised to interpret it. "it is judged that some might select it" is just wrong, as the set of people who would give a call serious consideration with no possibility of selecting it is empty. This is an example where I think that TDs are right to think that "the law is an ass".

[campboy]

The law shouldn't say "of whom it is judged some would select it", since an action which lots of people might take is an LA, even if there is no-one who would definitely take it.

Of course it is possible to seriously consider something without any chance of finally selecting it. Often I have to seriously consider something in order to work out that it's wrong; that doesn't mean I am incapable of doing the analysis reliably, just that I don't know the answer off the top of my head.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-May-19, 10:05, said:

The law shouldn't say "of whom it is judged some would select it", since an action which lots of people might take is an LA, even if there is no-one who would definitely take it.

If no-one would definitely take it, then it should be judged that no-one might select it. If a significant number seriously consider it, then some might choose it. You are trying to defend an obvious miswording in the Law.

If there were a list of possible actions in a bridge magazine competition, then one would expect there to be some votes for all "seriously considered" calls. Certainly, when I ran the Bridge Magazine bidding competition, there were always votes for all calls that had been listed by the editor.

In the thread which caused this disagreement over the wording of the Law, there were, at the time of PhilKing posting, no votes for Pass, although several had mentioned Pass as a possible bid. Later there were two or three votes for Pass, as statistically expected.

If a call is seriously considered by those polled, then a larger poll would usually result in votes for that call, even though the original poll did not. The skilled TD should judge, from the original small poll and comments, that some might select it.

[campboy]

I agree that "might" is a bit weak and would prefer "might well" or "would be likely to". But I think "would" is far too strong. In a hypothetical case where everyone says they would toss a mental coin between two alternatives, it should be clear that each is an LA and yet under your suggested wording it would seem to me that neither is an LA.

And I agree that it is very likely that an action which is being seriously considered by a significant number will satisfy the other criterion -- whatever it is -- and the TD will usually judge that it does. But the TD might sometimes judge otherwise.