weejonnie Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 The new laws state: (a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. The old law .. the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action. The new wording seems more direct. ♠ -♥ KQXXXX♦ XXXX♣ QXXX After 3 passes partner opens 1NT (12-14) and you transfer (2♦) into your heart suit. LHO now bids 2♠ (remember he passed 1st time round) Partner now trances and then passes. This pass COULD show good spades and partner wanted to double - but was worried. - so Double cannot be selectedThis pass COULD show good heart values, but partner decided he didn't want to bid to the 3 level opposite a passed partner - so 3♥ cannot be selectedAlternatively the pass COULD show that partner didn't have a clear raise to 3♥ - in which case pass cannot be selected Under the new law, however, it would seem that all three options are available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 I think you need to keep the whole phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" in mind. If all three possibilities are approximately equally likely, none of them could demonstrably have been suggested over another. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 18, 2017 Report Share Posted July 18, 2017 Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action.I'm sure SB will find a way to turn the new wording to his advantage. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted July 22, 2017 Report Share Posted July 22, 2017 The new laws state: (a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. The old law .. the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action. The new wording seems more direct. ♠ -♥ KQXXXX♦ XXXX♣ QXXX After 3 passes partner opens 1NT (12-14) and you transfer (2♦) into your heart suit. LHO now bids 2♠ (remember he passed 1st time round) Partner now trances and then passes. This pass COULD show good spades and partner wanted to double - but was worried. - so Double cannot be selectedThis pass COULD show good heart values, but partner decided he didn't want to bid to the 3 level opposite a passed partner - so 3♥ cannot be selectedAlternatively the pass COULD show that partner didn't have a clear raise to 3♥ - in which case pass cannot be selected Under the new law, however, it would seem that all three options are available. Whilst the UI COULD be based on any of those possibilities, one cannot demonstrate which one applies, and each possibility would suggest a different action. Thus no action could demonstrably have been suggested by the pause. Hence Responder is not constrained in the bidding. To me, the 2007 wording seems better than the 2017 version. To say that a call "is demonstrably suggested" implies a higher hurdle then "could demonstrably have been suggested". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted July 23, 2017 Report Share Posted July 23, 2017 To me, the 2007 wording seems better than the 2017 version. To say that a call "is demonstrably suggested" implies a higher hurdle then "could demonstrably have been suggested".My guess is that the new wording aims to get closer to the way things have actually been ruled, which is not in accordance with a pedantic reading of the old law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 23, 2017 Report Share Posted July 23, 2017 My guess is that the new wording aims to get closer to the way things have actually been ruled, which is not in accordance with a pedantic reading of the old law.The old wording left the door wide open for SB to claim that practically anything "could" demonstrably be suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted July 23, 2017 Report Share Posted July 23, 2017 The old wording left the door wide open for SB to claim that practically anything "could" demonstrably be suggested.Indeed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.