[Quartic]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 06:19, said:

Conducting the poll without the UI is useful, but it is just as important to conduct the poll with the UI. In this example, I regard double as automatic, but would pass because I think that Pass would be chosen by enough of my peers to make it an LA. I am surprised by the size of the Pass vote, but not that there are some votes for Pass, so the fact that "some of them would select it" is clear.

Whether pass is a LA is not dependant on the existence of UI. I think asking the poll without the UI will give a clear indication of which choices are LAs (as long as peers are suitably chosen), and I can't see any advantage to also conducting the poll with the UI.

[lamford]

Quartic, on 2012-August-21, 17:38, said:

Whether pass is a LA is not dependant on the existence of UI. I think asking the poll without the UI will give a clear indication of which choices are LAs (as long as peers are suitably chosen), and I can't see any advantage to also conducting the poll with the UI.

Because those polled can decide what is demonstrably suggested by the UI. That can be difficult as well. Whether Pass is an LA is not dependent on the UI, I agree, but whether it is demonstrably suggested is.

[barmar]

In that case, you have to conduct TWO polls, with two different questions. Q1: WIth no mention of the UI, you give the auction and ask what calls they would consider and which they would choose. Q2: Give the actual auction with the UI, and ask what they think the UI suggests.

Ideally you would use different players in the two polls, but that's almost certainly impractical. Q1 should be asked first, to avoid bias from hearing about the UI.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 19:04, said:

but whether it is demonstrably suggested is.

I think that these threads tend to be a little lenient on the offenders, since the criterion is not that a call is demonstrably suggested, but that it could be.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-22, 05:15, said:

I think that these threads tend to be a little lenient on the offenders, since the criterion is not that a call is demonstrably suggested, but that it could be.

Interesting point. The "demonstrably" qualifier seems to make the requirement harder, but then the "could be" qualifier reduces it. And these are both very subjective terms.

[campboy]

I have always thought the "could be" was there to emphasize that we are not ruling on whether the player involved actually was influenced in that direction by the UI, but whether players in general might be.

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2012-August-22, 05:29, said:

I have always thought the "could be" was there to emphasize that we are not ruling on whether the player involved actually was influenced in that direction by the UI, but whether players in general might be.

Exactly. And this is also exactly what Law 16 says, if you read it carefully. Law 16 says that the player's choice could have been suggested.
It does not say that an LA could have been suggested.

Law 16 consists of two parts: an objective part that needs to be demonstrated (proven) and a subjective part that merely needs to be a possibility (could):

The objective part is that the TD has to demonstrate (prove) that the UI made the chosen action more attractive than other LAs. This proof needs to be "air tight". It is objective, call it mathematical, call it a fact.

The subjective part is to rule that the player could have used the fact that the UI made his action more attractive to come to his choice. We don't know whether the player did use the UI or whether he ignored it. Maybe he would have always taken his action, irrespective of the UI, or even with the opposite UI. We don't know, since we can't look in the player's brain. But it is possible that the player may have used the UI to come to his choice. And that is enough for the subjective part.

So, the "could" refers to the player's thought process, something that a TD cannot possibly prove. And the demonstrably refers to the fact that the TD has to demonstrate that the UI made the player's action made more attractive than a logical alternative action. This is something that a TD can prove.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 07:28, said:

Exactly. And this is also exactly what Law 16 says, if you read it carefully. Law 16 says that the player's choice could have been suggested.
It does not say that an LA could have been suggested.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you quote the part of Law 16 to which you are referring?

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 07:28, said:

The objective part is that the TD has to demonstrate (prove) that the UI made the chosen action more attractive than other LAs. This proof needs to be "air tight". It is objective, call it mathematical, call it a fact.

He does not need to demonstrate it, but it does need to be demonstrable. And demonstrate certainly does not mean prove, and it is not a fact, it is a judgement by the TD and/or AC.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-22, 07:40, said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you quote the part of Law 16 to which you are referring?

Quote

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information [] the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

(Emphasis is mine.)

The words "choose", "could" and "suggest" belong together. They refer to the player's subjective thought process. "Suggestion" and "choose" are, by their nature, subjective words: They belong to the player"s brain, psyche or whatever.

A player may not chose what could have been suggested [to the subjective player, obviously] by the UI. But it is the TD's job to demonstrate [objectively] that the action the player took could have been demonstrably [objectively, factually] suggested by the UI over an LA.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 07:28, said:

Exactly. And this is also exactly what Law 16 says, if you read it carefully. Law 16 says that the player's choice could have been suggested.
It does not say that an LA could have been suggested.

blackshoe, on 2012-August-22, 07:40, said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. Can you quote the part of Law 16 to which you are referring?

Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 08:32, said:

The words "choose", "could" and "suggest" belong together. They refer to the player's subjective thought process. "Suggestion" and "choose" are, by their nature, subjective words: They belong to the player"s brain, psyche or whatever.

A player may not chose what could have been suggested [to the subjective player, obviously] by the UI. But it is the TD's job to demonstrate [objectively] that the action the player took could have been demonstrably [objectively, factually] suggested by the UI over an LA.

You quoted in your post 660832 just above

Quote

Law 16B1{a}: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information…the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The underline emphasis was yours, the bold red emphasis is mine. IMO, it is the latter which is important, as it clearly states that the choice this law prohibits is, among other things, an LA*. So I do disagree with your post 660819. However, this does not address the direction your thoughts are taking in 660832 above. On that, if I understand you correctly, we agree, but I'm not sure why you make the point.

*Yes, I realize that "practice" deprecates this interpretation. I think, however, that since the WBFLC has had several opportunities over the years to change the wording, and have not done so, that either (1) the WBFLC intends the law to mean just what it says, or (2) the WBFLC intends the law to be read the way "practice" would read it - e.g., substituting "plausible" for "logical". But if the latter is the case, why in Hell haven't they said so officially?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-22, 09:07, said:

You quoted in your post 660832 just above
The underline emphasis was yours, the bold red emphasis is mine. IMO, it is the latter which is important, as it clearly states that the choice this law prohibits is, among other things, an LA*. So I do disagree with your post 660819. However, this does not address the direction your thoughts are taking in 660832 above. On that, if I understand you correctly, we agree, but I'm not sure why you make the point.

*Yes, I realize that "practice" deprecates this interpretation. I think, however, that since the WBFLC has had several opportunities over the years to change the wording, and have not done so, that either (1) the WBFLC intends the law to mean just what it says, or (2) the WBFLC intends the law to be read the way "practice" would read it - e.g., substituting "plausible" for "logical". But if the latter is the case, why in Hell haven't they said so officially?

Because the WBFLC works in mysterious ways...

Rik

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-22, 09:07, said:

But if the latter is the case, why in Hell haven't they said so officially?

Wasn't there a Minute? (sorry, haven't looked it up)

[blackshoe]

mjj29, on 2012-August-22, 23:24, said:

Wasn't there a Minute? (sorry, haven't looked it up)

I don't think so. If you find one, please let us know.

[campboy]

mjj29, on 2012-August-22, 23:24, said:

Wasn't there a Minute? (sorry, haven't looked it up)

The White Book doesn't say anything about it, which suggests there isn't one.