BBO Discussion Forums: Punishing Partner - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Punishing Partner Would you Adjust?

#41 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2013-June-07, 14:30

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 09:28, said:

I think you're reading more into this than is wise. I expect that what actually happened was that they discussed a few examples, got most of the way to a complete agreement, couldn't agree on the extreme cases, and intentionally left it vague.

That is quite possible. I could try asking them on BLML, although they are careful never to give an "official" answer. I think it is up to the TD to decide whether a call that is "impossible to contemplate" is an LA. "May" allows him to go either way.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#42 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,594
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-June-07, 15:33

Can someone find the context of the WBFLC discussion, I think it should shed light on their intent (similar to reading the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, as they describe what was going on in the framers' minds). I suspect it was about players "taking a flyer" when confronted by UI, because they can't figure out what their ethical obligations are. Or it may have been intended specifically for something like this thread -- players shouldn't be able to get around the UI laws by doing something random or ridiculous.

#43 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2013-June-07, 16:19

 barmar, on 2013-June-07, 15:33, said:

Can someone find the context of the WBFLC discussion, I think it should shed light on their intent (similar to reading the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, as they describe what was going on in the framers' minds). I suspect it was about players "taking a flyer" when confronted by UI, because they can't figure out what their ethical obligations are. Or it may have been intended specifically for something like this thread -- players shouldn't be able to get around the UI laws by doing something random or ridiculous.

If that had been their concern, they could have made a call that was "impossible to contemplate" a breach of 16B or 73C. They did not. gnasher quoted the minute in question; I do not know of the background to it, other than possibly the Reno minute referred to in another thread.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#44 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2013-June-07, 16:23

 barmar, on 2013-June-07, 15:33, said:

Can someone find the context of the WBFLC discussion, I think it should shed light on their intent (similar to reading the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, as they describe what was going on in the framers' minds). I suspect it was about players "taking a flyer" when confronted by UI, because they can't figure out what their ethical obligations are. Or it may have been intended specifically for something like this thread -- players shouldn't be able to get around the UI laws by doing something random or ridiculous.

There's no published context beyond what I posted a week or so ago in one of Paul's other threads. The minutes are here:

http://www.worldbrid...2010philly1.pdf
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#45 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,446
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2013-June-07, 17:06

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 16:23, said:

There's no published context beyond what I posted a week or so ago in one of Paul's other threads. The minutes are here:

http://www.worldbrid...2010philly1.pdf

I note that the committee had addressed a 19-page agenda. That might have given some insight to minute 3.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

5 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users