[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-24, 16:32, said:

It does seem an odd way to phrase it, if in fact they meant "the player selected a called which could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative".

A member of the AC has clarified that the AC chairman intended to write "Pass is not a logical alternative that may be chosen over others since it is demonstrably suggested by the UI".

[FrancesHinden]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-23, 16:42, said:

I've been away from tournaments for a while, so I may not be up on current lingo, but I would always equate "fine" with "financial penalty".

Oddly enough, I was surprised to hear the phrase "in the money" used in ACBL tournaments to mean "getting masterpoints", whereas I have always used it literally in bridge events. Not that the money is very much.

[barmar]

Now that I think about it some more, I think they may be confusing between LA meaning "the possible calls you might consider absent the UI" versus "the calls that are allowed after having received UI".

It does seem to be a common confusion about the UI laws. Essentially, it puts the cart before the horse. The laws say that you first enumerate the LAs, then remove the ones that are demonstrably suggested, and can choose among the remainder. With the confusion, you view the process as remove actions that are demonstrably suggested, and the LAs are the remainder (to these people, it would be more sensible if LA stood for Legal Alternatives).

Except for the incorrect terminology of the ruling, it seems like the end result is the same, so is it really that important an issue?

[mycroft]

If what they meant was "bidding is a Logical Alternative, and passing was suggested by the UI, so we are adjusting the score based on bidding", then it's fine.

If what they meant was "passing was an LA suggested by the UI, so we are adjusting the score", it's not fine - *unless there's another alternative to passing that is Logical* - and in that case, it should be phrased that way.

Unfortunately, there are those - including some on Appeals Committees (though the last 15 years have been spent trying to educate, or trying not to include on future ACs, those people), who skip one of the steps, usually "the UI suggested X; adjust because the player did X." Usually X is "bid", not "pass", of course, but the same "oh dear, did they misspeak, or is this what they actually meant?" applies when one sees the quote.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2012-January-24, 11:46, said:

WB 93.4.3(m) states that "once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think this should be followed, certainly if members of the AC, appellants or defendants, are on this forum. If the L&E confers an exemption to this rule for this forum, then it should be stated.

If you think this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why on this thread have you posted the AC's written comments and (at least implicity) criticised the lack of detail in explaining the AC's decision?

If your partner thinks this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why has she made a public criticism of the AC in the opening post of this thread? Moreover, it's not as if she has given anonymity to the people she has criticised. In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the parties involved.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2012-January-25, 17:15, said:

In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the parties involved.

There has been such criticism, but it was not of me.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2012-January-25, 17:15, said:

If you think this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why on this thread have you posted the AC's written comments and (at least implicity) criticised the lack of detail in explaining the AC's decision?

If your partner thinks this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why has she made a public criticism of the AC in the opening post of this thread? Moreover, it's not as if she has given anonymity to the people she has criticised. In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the partieinvolved.

My partner does not think the rule should be interpreted in the way I suggest. Bluejak has since clarified that discussion of any part of the AC ruling is permitted in this forum, and I accept that "no discussion is permitted" means "discussion is permitted provided it is not head-to-head". I now agree with this interpretation, but it was not what the WB said.

A member of the AC kindly sent an (unsolicited) email to both Vampyr and me to give further details of the AC ruling, and I wrote:

"A member of the AC has clarified that the AC chairman intended to write "Pass is not a logical alternative that may be chosen over others since it is demonstrably suggested by the UI".

I had already written that I did not think that the original wording being wrong was a big thing. I don't think there is any reference to any member of the AC in this thread. Of course, the bridge grapevine spreads news fast.

[aguahombre]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-23, 16:24, said:

This is very cute.

Even more cute at the bottom of the graph. "Raw data is...."

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2012-January-26, 07:50, said:

My partner does not think the rule should be interpreted in the way I suggest. Bluejak has since clarified that discussion of any part of the AC ruling is permitted in this forum, and I accept that "no discussion is permitted" means "discussion is permitted provided it is not head-to-head". I now agree with this interpretation, but it was not what the WB said.

A member of the AC kindly sent an (unsolicited) email to both Vampyr and me to give further details of the AC ruling, and I wrote:

"A member of the AC has clarified that the AC chairman intended to write "Pass is not a logical alternative that may be chosen over others since it is demonstrably suggested by the UI".

I had already written that I did not think that the original wording being wrong was a big thing. I don't think there is any reference to any member of the AC in this thread. Of course, the bridge grapevine spreads news fast.

It was not unsolicited.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-26, 14:50, said:

It was not unsolicited.

It was in the sense of "given or done voluntarily". I wanted to stress that I had not corresponded with an AC member myself. There was no sugggestion that the email was unwelcome, and I apologise if I gave that impression.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-23, 10:39, said:

How long has "logical alternative" been in the laws? They certainly had an opportunity to change the wording in 2007. Why didn't they?

Good point . When I expressed such opinions, blackshoe deleted my posts, ostensibly for being off-topic or in the wrong forum
Anyway blackshoe is right:
In the past, had lawmakers adjusted the laws in place, in response to pleas for clarity, they would long ago have resolved a lot of contentious ambiguities and anomalies
If clarifying a particular law is too hard a task, then it may also be too hard for players to understand. Law-makers should consider simplifying it

bluejak, on 2012-January-24, 11:03, said:

I would hate to agree with wank in any way, but I do not see the point of this thread either. Surely, to comment sensibly on it, we need to see the hand.

I support vampyr in raising the issue of the legality of committee rulings. It seems peculiar to overturn a director decision and to penalise the other side.
The law-book should stipulate that the committee must always consult a director about the legality of its ruling and its phrasing. The committee could still reject the director's advice.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2012-January-26, 19:19, said:

When I expressed such opinions, blackshoe deleted my posts, ostensibly for being off-topic or in the wrong forum

I did, did I? I think you must be mistaken, since if that was the reason I did anything with your posts, what I would have done would have been to move them to the right forum (assuming there is one). In any case, I don't recall doing anything with any posts of yours. Certainly not recently.

[IanPayn]

lamford, on 2012-January-26, 07:50, said:

I had already written that I did not think that the original wording being wrong was a big thing. I don't think there is any reference to any member of the AC in this thread. Of course, the bridge grapevine spreads news fast.

++++Indeed it does. Even to the outlying badlands of Fulham...

[bluejak]

Quote

It was not unsolicited.

lamford, on 2012-January-26, 18:24, said:

It was in the sense of "given or done voluntarily".

This does not make sens to me. Something that is solicited is asked for. Voluntarily has nothing to do with it.

I have no idea what this is about nor whether it matters, but if someone asked in any way, directly or indirectly, for details from the AC Chairman, it was solicited.

nige1, on 2012-January-26, 19:19, said:

I support vampyr in raising the issue of the legality of committee rulings. It seems peculiar to overturn a director decision and to penalise the other side.

I don't understand this either, again as a general comment as against the specific. If an AC thinks that a ruling should be different and include a PP or DP, what difference does it make whether they are disagreeing with a TD or not?

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-February-01, 09:27, said:

I have no idea what this is about nor whether it matters, but if someone asked in any way, directly or indirectly, for details from the AC Chairman, it was solicited.

Apparently my partner sent a PM on here, of which I was not aware, to one of the AC members, hence the confusion.