What's suggested?

[Vampyr]

What color would that book be?

 

I don't care, as long as it's sparkly.

[aguahombre]

Orange and white are taken. Emerald green comes to mind.

[Vampyr]

Orange and white are taken. Emerald green comes to mind.

 

I think that keeping it red is fine. I am not sure what your references to the Orange and White books are apropos of. The Orange Book is a book of EBU regulations and has little to do with the Laws. The White Book does have some examples of applying the Laws, but interpretation is left to WBF minutes, consensus on forums such as this and among top-level directors, and often to the individual director on the ground. None of these are widely disseminated, and none but the first are reliable.

 

The Laws should be written in normal, intelligible English (indeed, the abtruse and convoluted usage causes problems with translations into other languages). The Laws should say what they are supposed to mean, and not require "interpretation", sometimes to the extent that the Law is understood to be the opposite of what is written. The Laws should, above all, conform to what is generally agreed to be a sensible way to rule the game.

 

I gather that you disagree with the above. Each to his own.

[blackshoe]

Write it in Loglan. B-)

[aguahombre]

The Laws should be written in normal, intelligible English (indeed, the abtruse and convoluted usage causes problems with translations into other languages). The Laws should say what they are supposed to mean, and not require "interpretation", sometimes to the extent that the Law is understood to be the opposite of what is written. The Laws should, above all, conform to what is generally agreed to be a sensible way to rule the game.

 

I gather that you disagree with the above. Each to his own.

You have correctly interpreted "snide". But, I agree with every word of that paragraph above. What you describe are laws the way they should be organized and worded, so that players and directors know what they are. Another book to explain the wording and put the various laws into context with one another is not the answer. Such book should be written by the lawmakers, not by alleged authorities on what the lawmakers meant. And because of this, they should just make the laws themselves intelligible.

 

Unfortunately, that won't happen. They have made it clear that they will not be doing a major reorganization or revamp. A simple example is when we must look in a section regarding the play of the hand to find any mention of aids to memory or technique ---which should apply to bidding as well.

 

When we learned how to write procedural manuals, we found that an 8th grade (American 8th grade--not very sophisticated) language level was sufficient to get the job done as long as the words were chosen carefully and a general outline was adhered to, with everything in its place and a place for everything.

[gordontd]

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".

It can't say "did select it" because we are dealing with hypotheticals.

 

From the White Book:

If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD should next

decide whether some would actually choose it.

Again the Laws do not specify a figure for “some”, and the TD should assume that it

means more than just an isolated exception.

If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is

not an LA.

Serious consideration is more than a passing thought.

 

You seem to believe that the law-makers have introduced an extra sentence for no purpose other than to confuse, and that the law should be read as though that sentence were not there. I believe that it is simple to understand the law as written, and my understanding is consistent with the way our regulating authority explicitly tells us to understand it.

[lamford]

You seem to believe that the law-makers have introduced an extra sentence for no purpose other than to confuse, and that the law should be read as though that sentence were not there.

No, I think that the Law should say "it is judged that some would select it", which is the way that it is interpreted, and the way English TDs are advised to interpret it. "it is judged that some might select it" is just wrong, as the set of people who would give a call serious consideration with no possibility of selecting it is empty. This is an example where I think that TDs are right to think that "the law is an ass".

[campboy]

The law shouldn't say "of whom it is judged some would select it", since an action which lots of people might take is an LA, even if there is no-one who would definitely take it.

 

Of course it is possible to seriously consider something without any chance of finally selecting it. Often I have to seriously consider something in order to work out that it's wrong; that doesn't mean I am incapable of doing the analysis reliably, just that I don't know the answer off the top of my head.

[lamford]

The law shouldn't say "of whom it is judged some would select it", since an action which lots of people might take is an LA, even if there is no-one who would definitely take it.

If no-one would definitely take it, then it should be judged that no-one might select it. If a significant number seriously consider it, then some might choose it. You are trying to defend an obvious miswording in the Law.

 

If there were a list of possible actions in a bridge magazine competition, then one would expect there to be some votes for all "seriously considered" calls. Certainly, when I ran the Bridge Magazine bidding competition, there were always votes for all calls that had been listed by the editor.

 

In the thread which caused this disagreement over the wording of the Law, there were, at the time of PhilKing posting, no votes for Pass, although several had mentioned Pass as a possible bid. Later there were two or three votes for Pass, as statistically expected.

 

If a call is seriously considered by those polled, then a larger poll would usually result in votes for that call, even though the original poll did not. The skilled TD should judge, from the original small poll and comments, that some might select it.

[campboy]

I agree that "might" is a bit weak and would prefer "might well" or "would be likely to". But I think "would" is far too strong. In a hypothetical case where everyone says they would toss a mental coin between two alternatives, it should be clear that each is an LA and yet under your suggested wording it would seem to me that neither is an LA.

 

And I agree that it is very likely that an action which is being seriously considered by a significant number will satisfy the other criterion -- whatever it is -- and the TD will usually judge that it does. But the TD might sometimes judge otherwise.

[barmar]

I agree that "might" is a bit weak and would prefer "might well" or "would be likely to". But I think "would" is far too strong. In a hypothetical case where everyone says they would toss a mental coin between two alternatives, it should be clear that each is an LA and yet under your suggested wording it would seem to me that neither is an LA.

I don't understand. If they would toss a coin, that means that half of them would take each action. That certainly fits "some would take it".

[campboy]

I don't understand. If they would toss a coin, that means that half of them would take each action. That certainly fits "some would take it".

It means that on average you would expect about half to take it, not that half would take it in any given instance. Also, one plausible interpretation of "some would take it" is that there are some specific people who would take it; I think the wording needs to make it clear that that isn't what is meant.

 

If you think that "some would take it" is satisfied whenever there are players who would take the action some of the time, then I don't see any difference between the two wordings.

[lamford]

I agree that "might" is a bit weak and would prefer "might well" or "would be likely to". But I think "would" is far too strong. In a hypothetical case where everyone says they would toss a mental coin between two alternatives, it should be clear that each is an LA and yet under your suggested wording it would seem to me that neither is an LA.

 

And I agree that it is very likely that an action which is being seriously considered by a significant number will satisfy the other criterion -- whatever it is -- and the TD will usually judge that it does. But the TD might sometimes judge otherwise.

The EBU doesn't agree with you. As gordontd states, the advice is:

"If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD should next decide whether some would actually choose it." (my emphasis)

The TD is not asked to judge whether some of them might choose it, as they would be if one followed the wrong wording of the Law.

 

And for what it is worth if everyone would toss a mental coin then it would be judged that some might choose it and some would choose it, in both cases 50% - assuming the mental coin is unbiased.