[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-August-22, 04:15, said:

You keep suggesting that 16B requires the player to choose an LA, but it does not.

I am aware that this section of 16B is also misworded, but this time following the Law exactly as written does lead to a ridiculous outcome. I agree with Vampyr that the bid chosen is deemed to be an LA, and that when ruling we replace the bid chosen only with an LA. This is also a change I have suggested to Endicott. Why do I reject the literal interpretation here, but advocate it with regard to "the methods of the partnership"? Because it works perfectly well for someone to select LAs based on the methods of the partnership. And if the Laws do not produce a ridiculous result they should be followed, even if Jefferson, Nixon and Truman think they are too lenient on the misbidder.

This is in simple "read from the Law Book rulings" and folks want to ignore what the Law book says!

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-22, 16:06, said:

ROFLMAO!

Seriously we should all be careful and try to avoid randomly guessing about factual data. People will be misled.

It wasn't random guessing, it was simply a memory failure. I know that EBU adopted an announcement process similar ACBL's. I thought they copied the short-club announcement as part of this, and felt confident enough that I didn't feel like looking it up, but I qualified my statement just in case. It turns out I was wrong -- sigh. Then you decided to be passive-aggressive about it rather than simply point out my error (as if it's even important -- no one is going to use this thread as a reference for announcing in EBU).

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-August-22, 16:47, said:

Why do I reject the literal interpretation here, but advocate it with regard to "the methods of the partnership"? Because it works perfectly well for someone to select LAs based on the methods of the partnership. And if the Laws do not produce a ridiculous result they should be followed, even if Jefferson, Nixon and Truman think they are too lenient on the misbidder.

Good luck finding LAs for Precision bidders who opened 1♣ with a weak notrump!

What can I say but tell Grattan again? (Because of course this time the Drafting Committee are going to listen to suggestions...)

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-22, 12:54, said:

Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 06:41, said:

It is simply not possible to demonstrate that the UI made all LAs more attractive than some other LA. One needs to be least attractive. Therefore, a TD (or anyone else) will not be able to demonstrate that a choice for this alternative "could have been suggested" by the UI.

But sometimes it is not clear which ones are more or least attractive, as when it is not clear why partner eg hesitated.

Then it is not possible to demonstrate that the UI made one alternative more attractive than another. In such a case the player did not chose among LA's one that could have demonstrably been suggested over another and there is no infraction.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-August-23, 00:43, said:

Then it is not possible to demonstrate that the UI made one alternative more attractive than another. In such a case the player did not chose among LA's one that could have demonstrably been suggested over another and there is no infraction.

Right. The "if it hesitates, shoot it" mentality tends to push players into picking something, but sometimes you have to say that it could go either way (a slow invitation could either be choosing between pass and invite, or between invite and force, or maybe among different game tries).