[campboy]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

campboy said:

The difficulty, of course, is that just because a player believes he would always have bid 3NT without UI, that does not make it true.

The real difficulty is that just because a player correctly believes that he would always have bid 3NT (so that it is in fact true), that does not make it legal.

Why does that not make it legal? The UI has made no difference to the result, so no advantage, so no breach of 73C. However (and this seems to be what your story about the absinthe actually illustrates), that does not mean that the TD will not (or should not) adjust the score; he cannot tell whether the player's belief is correct.

In fact, I would go further and say that if I know what I was planning to do before the UI occurred, law 73C requires me to go ahead and do it anyway (when this does not clash with my law 16 obligations). The only way I can be sure of not gaining an advantage is to take the same action; if I change my mind in an attempt to take the less suggested action, accidentally guess wrong and get a better score, have I not gained an advantage?

Quote

Although I know in my heart that I did not take any advantage of the information received, no one else will believe it. The Laws of bridge are so structured that an umpire does not say (or need to say) "you did what you did because you acted on unauthorized information, so we will rule against you". Instead, he says "you did what someone acting on unauthorized information would have done, so although I am quite prepared to take your word for it that you hate absinthe, nevertheless I will rule against you as if you had acted on unauthorized information".

I completely agree with this. The only place we differ seems to be on how the player should act, not how the TD should act. As a player, I will do what I believe to be ethical; this is not the same as doing what I believe will most likely avoid an adverse ruling. I am quite prepared to accept that a TD may have a different view of what I should have done.

[blackshoe]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

Then they all need their heads examined.

Hm. The minutes of the meeting are not yet up on the web site (not saying they should be up this quick, just that they aren't). Are we club level directors (not to mention ACBL Tournament Directors) supposed to know this already?

[JanM]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 03:10 AM, said:

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

That is going to slow down the play in ACBL tournaments even more than the players manage to slow it down at the moment. For if, when a player takes any action in the presence of unauthorized information, it becomes ipso facto a logical alternative that Law 16 therefore means he may not take, he will sit there for quite some time wondering what to do. Is Bertrand Russell a member of the ACBL Laws Commission, by any chance?

Law 16 says that you can't choose from among logical alternatives one that is suggested by the UI. It doesn't say that you can't make a bid that is a logical alternative. The suggestion was made that a bid actually made by the player at the table might not be a logical alternative, and that is what was addressed by the ACBL Laws Committee.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2010, 12:06 PM, said:

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

Then they all need their heads examined.

Hm. The minutes of the meeting are not yet up on the web site (not saying they should be up this quick, just that they aren't). Are we club level directors (not to mention ACBL Tournament Directors) supposed to know this already?

Well, since it seemed obvious to many of us that if a player actually made a bid it was a logical alternative, I wouldn't think that this clarification was of much relevance except to those who thought that if a player made an egregiously bad bid based on UI, the player could argue that Law 16 didn't apply because the bid s/he made was not a logical alternative and thus s/he didn't choose from among logical alternatives one that was suggested by the UI. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would actually make such an argument with a straight face, but some of the posters here disagreed, so I asked the Laws Committee.
I do not understand why you think it is foolish to consider a bid actually made at the table a logical alternative. Any club director who would have allowed a player to make a bid that was so bad the director did not believe anyone would consider it seriously on the basis that Law 16 didn't apply is the one who IMHO might need his or her head examined.

[dburn]

Previously, it has been held (at least in England) that if a player attempts to avoid his Law 16 responsibilities by taking an illogical action in the presence of UI, he would be in breach of his Law 73 responsibilities. I see no particular reason why the ACBL Laws Commission could not adopt the same approach, if its only concern was that players might act in this fashion and claim immunity from prosecution.

Still, it is of course no business of mine to suggest to the ACBL Laws Commission what it should do, let alone to suggest that it should submit to phrenological scrutiny. My intention was merely to express the mild concern that unless the new regulation is very carefully considered, it may proscribe players from taking an action suggested by UI even when the AI they have available suggests the identical action.

I have no doubt, however, that although the ACBL Laws Commission does not in fact contain Bertrand Russell, it nevertheless contains more than enough equally fine minds, whose possessors will easily avoid such potential paradoxes.

[JanM]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Previously, it has been held (at least in England) that if a player attempts to avoid his Law 16 responsibilities by taking an illogical action in the presence of UI, he would be in breach of his Law 73 responsibilities. I see no particular reason why the ACBL Laws Commission could not adopt the same approach, if its only concern was that players might act in this fashion and claim immunity from prosecution.

Still, it is of course no business of mine to suggest to the ACBL Laws Commission what it should do, let alone to suggest that it should submit to phrenological scrutiny. My intention was merely to express the mild concern that unless the new regulation is very carefully considered, it may proscribe players from taking an action suggested by UI even when the AI they have available suggests the identical action.

I have no doubt, however, that although the ACBL Laws Commission does not in fact contain Bertrand Russell, it nevertheless contains more than enough equally fine minds, whose possessors will easily avoid such potential paradoxes.

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

[peachy]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

This interpretation brings back the ancient thread on another forum, re-told by me here at least twice, about the 6S call.

Auction, with opponents silent.

1S -...3S (3S=limit raise, but made with break in tempo)
6S (opener did not have anywhere near slamgoing hand )

Apparently, opener got frustrated, knowing his hands were tied after partner significantly broke tempo so he decided to make a call that was not a logical alternative at all, to him or to any other sane player of any level and skill. 6S made by miraculous lie of the cards. Was ruled to 4S or 3S or a mix of both, by a consensus of respected TDs at the time.

Now ACBL new interpretation would describe this 6S call a logical alternative because this action was taken and therefore it is a logical alternative.

Am I misunderstanding what the Laws Commission decided, or is there more than what has been revealed here on BBF?

[blackshoe]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

Abraham Lincoln was said to have opined, speaking of sheep, that a sheep has only four legs, even if you call its tail a leg, because "calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one". Apparently, he was mistaken. Like Humpty Dumpty, it seems the ACBLLC can define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. It's nothing new, really. Grattan Endicott told me years ago (under the previous laws) that "logical alternative" didn't really mean what it says - rather it means (meant) something more like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". This is much the same. I had thought, when the new laws came out, that this kind of redefinition had been put to rest. Silly me.

Bottom line, AFAICS, is that this does change the provisions of Law 16, because it changes the plain English meaning of the word "logical" to something else.

The lawmakers would do better, it seems to me, to decide what they want the law to say, and then say it in plain English.

[dburn]

My concern is not so much that the new regulation might change the meaning of the word "logical", but that it might change the meaning of the word "alternative".

The thing about alternatives is that there cannot be only one of them. Strictly speaking, in any given situation there must be exactly two of them, each being the other's alternative. But in common parlance (especially bridge parlance) one often speaks of "three alternatives" when one should properly speak of "three possibilities", and this is not really an issue (not least because there is nothing the ACBL can do about it - the Laws use the word "alternative" and so must the regulation).

Imagine that you have eight solid spades. You choose to open 1♠, the next hand bids 4♥ and your partner makes a slow double that you play as penalty (yes, I know that most of you don't play it as penalty, but bear with me for a moment). Now, the UI demonstrably suggests that you remove this - but so does your hand; one would say that you had "no [logical] alternative" to bidding 4♠.

But if when you do bid 4♠ it becomes by regulation a "logical alternative", it must by definition become a logical alternative to something else - in the case of a slow penalty double, the usual candidate for "something else" is "pass". Since the UI demonstrably suggests that you do not pass, the new regulation will require you to pass even though to do so is not logical.

At least, that is what I fear it will do. As I say, if what the ACBL wants to do is simply to prevent players from dodging Law 16 by taking illogical actions and hoping for the best, Law 73 already prevents them from doing that, and the ACBL need do nothing. But it may open up a can of worms if it says that an action is a "logical alternative" when there are no logical alternatives to it.

[mjj29]

dburn, on Mar 15 2010, 03:50 AM, said:

But if when you do bid 4♠ it becomes by regulation a "logical alternative", it must by definition become a logical alternative to something else - in the case of a slow penalty double, the usual candidate for "something else" is "pass". Since the UI demonstrably suggests that you do not pass, the new regulation will require you to pass even though to do so is not logical.

Ah, I see where you are coming from, yes that may be the pedantically correct definition given that 'alternative' is gramatically restricted to precisely two. However, that's clearly not the intepretation that is in use anyway (as you say, it's already standard that there may be _more_ than two). In this case you say "so 4S is a logical alternative, alternative to what?" to which the answer is not "pick the most likely thing, it must be an LA because you said 4S was an 'alternative', so there must be some", but "to whatever other LAs there may _or may not_ be". After all, the law specifically defines that pass is _not_ an LA, and since it was not selected at the table this new regulation does not either. What it does do (correctly IMO) is state that if you pass and don't bid 4S, pass is considered logical along with 4S which would normally be the only logical option, so now you have alternatives and can adjust (assuming for the moment that pass is considered suggested).

[blackshoe]

While David is correct about the meaning of "alternative", at least as it was originally defined, it is not just bridge that uses the word to mean more than two possibilities. It is quite common, at least in the US, and in fact Merriam-Webster online defines it as "two or more" choices. I suppose that, like Nero Wolfe's reaction to the change in language involving the word "contact" (His sidekick Archie Goodwin found him in the office one day, ripping pages out of his brand new Webster's Unabridged Dictionary and burning them in the fireplace. He asked Wolfe what he was doing, and Wolfe growled "contact is not a verb!") we should deplore this evolution in language, but in fact language does evolve, and it seems that "alternative" has done so.

I would make another point, though. This isn't a regulation we're talking about. It's an interpretation of law by (technically) a Zonal Authority. In fact, the ACBL asserts the right to change the law in whatever way it sees fit, within its jurisdiction. So the ACBL can, it claims, define "logical alternative" in whatever way it likes, notwithstanding Law 16B1{b}, and notwithstanding a statement (should one be made) by the WBF that the ACBL's definition is incorrect in law.

I suppose that if the ACBL can do whatever it likes, it can change the meaning of alternative to "one or more choices", too.

[dburn]

blackshoe said:

While David is correct about the meaning of "alternative", at least as it was originally defined, it is not just bridge that uses the word to mean more than two possibilities.

Oh, one can plausibly argue that if three possibilities A, B and C exist, then: B is an alternative to A and so is C; A is an alternative to B and so is C; A is an alternative to C and so is B.

Pedant though I am, I don't really mind the extension of the meaning of "alternative" to situations in which there exist more than two possibilities.

What I do mind is the notion that if only one possibility exists, it can be described as an "alternative" to anything at all. It cannot, and so to describe it is an error. mjj29 appears to me to fall into this error when he says that it is OK to describe X as an alternative to "whatever other LAs there may _or may not_ be" [his emphasis]. If there are none, then X is not an alternative. If there are, then if X is suggested by UI it may not be selected, regardless of whether it is also suggested by AI. And if X is deemed an alternative merely by virtue of having been selected, then...

[mjj29]

dburn, on Mar 15 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

blackshoe said:

While David is correct about the meaning of "alternative", at least as it was originally defined, it is not just bridge that uses the word to mean more than two possibilities.

Oh, one can plausibly argue that if three possibilities A, B and C exist, then: B is an alternative to A and so is C; A is an alternative to B and so is C; A is an alternative to C and so is B.

Pedant though I am, I don't really mind the extension of the meaning of "alternative" to situations in which there exist more than two possibilities.

What I do mind is the notion that if only one possibility exists, it can be described as an "alternative" to anything at all. It cannot, and so to describe it is an error. mjj29 appears to me to fall into this error when he says that it is OK to describe X as an alternative to "whatever other LAs there may _or may not_ be" [his emphasis]. If there are none, then X is not an alternative. If there are, then if X is suggested by UI it may not be selected, regardless of whether it is also suggested by AI. And if X is deemed an alternative merely by virtue of having been selected, then...

OK, so in that case it is a poorly worded minute that should read "For the purposes of judging the available logical alternatives for law 16 the action selection at the table is to be deemed logical whether or not it meets the criteria for 'logical alternative' which is given in law 16", because that's clearly what was meant as your interpretation of it is insane.

[pran]

mjj29, on Mar 16 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

dburn, on Mar 15 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

blackshoe said:

While David is correct about the meaning of "alternative", at least as it was originally defined, it is not just bridge that uses the word to mean more than two possibilities.

Oh, one can plausibly argue that if three possibilities A, B and C exist, then: B is an alternative to A and so is C; A is an alternative to B and so is C; A is an alternative to C and so is B.

Pedant though I am, I don't really mind the extension of the meaning of "alternative" to situations in which there exist more than two possibilities.

What I do mind is the notion that if only one possibility exists, it can be described as an "alternative" to anything at all. It cannot, and so to describe it is an error. mjj29 appears to me to fall into this error when he says that it is OK to describe X as an alternative to "whatever other LAs there may _or may not_ be" [his emphasis]. If there are none, then X is not an alternative. If there are, then if X is suggested by UI it may not be selected, regardless of whether it is also suggested by AI. And if X is deemed an alternative merely by virtue of having been selected, then...

OK, so in that case it is a poorly worded minute that should read "For the purposes of judging the available logical alternatives for law 16 the action selection at the table is to be deemed logical whether or not it meets the criteria for 'logical alternative' which is given in law 16", because that's clearly what was meant as your interpretation of it is insane.

May I remind you of the actual text in Law 16B1a: .....the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information (the emphasizes are mine)

The law doesn't say that a player may not use an alternative that is suggested by UI; it says suggested over another.

And besides the law is written so that it only applies when there are more than one alternative; it uses the plural form alternatives.

This discussion on whether or not a single possibility is an alternative appears meaningless to me for the application of Law 16.

[blackshoe]

David's concern appears to be this sequence: there was UI, the recipient of the UI chose a call which was successful, the ACBLLC has decreed that such a call is a LA, willy-nilly, therefore the TD shall adjust the score.

Sven wouldn't do that. Neither would I. But I would not be at all surprised to see someone do it, particularly in North America.

BTW, there is no "minute" on this, at least not yet. Jan reported a decision that was made at a meeting three days ago — it will be some time before any official minutes are available to most of us.

[bluejak]

Obviously there is no reason to automatically adjust the score, and the ACBL minute as I understand it does not suggest that you should. It says the chosen action is an LA.

Only if the chosen action is suggested over an LA by the UI is there any reason to adjust. In such a case long discussions in the past suggest that most TDs consider it right to adjust, giving one of about five different legal bases for that decision. I am one such TD.

I do not really see the worry over this ACBL minute. Some TDs have always followed that line anyway, and most TDs would like to be told what to do in a specific type of situation: in the ACBL there is now a legal base for doing what a majority want to do, so fair enough.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Mar 15 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

While David is correct about the meaning of "alternative", at least as it was originally defined, it is not just bridge that uses the word to mean more than two possibilities. It is quite common, at least in the US, and in fact Merriam-Webster online defines it as "two or more" choices.

Does it really? How depressing.

There is definitely only one choice, however many possibilitiies, alternatives or options there may be.

Chambers' dictionary defines alternative as "either of a pair, or any of a set, of possibilities"

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 16 2010, 10:20 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 15 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

While David is correct about the meaning of "alternative", at least as it was originally defined, it is not just bridge that uses the word to mean more than two possibilities. It is quite common, at least in the US, and in fact Merriam-Webster online defines it as "two or more" choices.

Does it really? How depressing.

No, not as far as I can see:

http://www.merriam-w...ary/alternative

Quote

Main Entry: 2 alternative
Function: noun
Date: 1624

1 a : a proposition or situation offering a choice between two or more things only one of which may be chosen b : an opportunity for deciding between two or more courses or propositions
2 a : one of two or more things, courses, or propositions to be chosen b : something which can be chosen instead <the only alternative to intervention>
3 : alternative rock music

Sadly, it then rather spoils things by saying

Quote

synonyms see CHOICE

[blackshoe]

How is "two or more" not different from "only two"?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Mar 17 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

How is "two or more" not different from "only two"?

Frances's objection was to your use of the word "choice". The "things", "courses" and "propositions" referred to by your dictionary are not "choices".

Perhaps this will make things clearer. It's from the OED, in case anyone else thinks that Frances's Scrabble Word Book lacks the necessary authority.

Compact OED said:

alternative
noun  one of two or more available possibilities.
...
choice
noun  1 an act of choosing. 2 the right or ability to choose. 3 a range from which to choose. 4 something chosen.