gordontd, on 2013-May-15, 15:28, said:
I'd like to take issue with this assertion. Were it true, there would be no need for the second requirement in the law.
The Law says: "A logical alternative action is 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."
So, it is wrong to reject a call as an LA because nobody in a small poll actually selects it, as the only requirement is that the TD judges that some
might select it. (My emphasis). If a call is given
serious consideration, then,
ipso facto, it will normally be judged that some might select it, so, in practice, the second requirement in the Law will always be met if the first is.
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".
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar