[TimG]

bluejak, on Aug 2 2009, 06:42 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

• the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and

You quoted "could demonstrably have been suggested " before, which seems different than "to be suggested", the former allowing for the possibility, the latter saying it was so.

I post a lot in these forums and on RGB [rec.games.bridge], also I answer a lot of queries by email and phone. I deliberately do not use the same language every time: it makes my posts boring and stale.

In fact I very rarely say anything should be 'demonstrably suggested': are you sure you are not confusing me witrh my friend Ed who usually does write that in his posts?

We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list]. We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not.

Yes, I'm sure it was you who quoted "demonstrably suggested":

bluejak, on Jul 29 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

Yes.  Law 16B1A reads in part "... may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."  I think that means you have to look at each pair separately.

I think part of my confusion is over the meaning of "could demonstrably have been suggested". Does the adverb "demonstrably" modify "could" or "suggested"?

It might mean: "someone could show that it was suggested". Or, it could mean: "could have been clearly suggested".

I think you are using the first: one must demonstrate that an action was suggested. I think Ed is using the second: an action that could have been suggested is not allowed (if successful) -- it is unnecessary to demonstrate that it actually was suggested.

It seems useful to me to use consistent wording when speaking of the application of Laws even if this is not BLML. Otherwise ambiguities are bound to arise.

[bluejak]

When I quote a Law and do so in parentheses then of course I quote it accurately. Be serious, what else do you expect? But I am not constrained to use lawyerly language when I am not quoting, nor do I, nor do I intend to. As for directly comparing things in quotes and other arguments, I do not think that helpful.

[TimG]

bluejak, on Aug 2 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

When I quote a Law and do so in parentheses then of course I quote it accurately. Be serious, what else do you expect? But I am not constrained to use lawyerly language when I am not quoting, nor do I, nor do I intend to. As for directly comparing things in quotes and other arguments, I do not think that helpful.

It appears to me that your non-lawyerly language means something different than the Law which you quoted. If you are going to say things that mean something different than the Laws, yet refuse to explain when asked, that does not seem helpful to those who wish to gain understanding. If things in quotes and other arguments are not in agreement, shouldn't they be compared and discussed in order to get to the correct understanding?

[bluejak]

I am sorry: I have posted this way for many years, and am not changing my posting stryle. That's it.

And, no, I do not agree with the assertion. But I am not going to argue it while people are telling me how I should post.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Aug 3 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Aug 2 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

The key is that partner can have two hands. On the one side partner may have stretched. He has considered a single raise, but thought he was just a bit too strong for that (say 9 really nice points, reevaluated to 10). On the other side partner may have been considering a game forcing raise and concluded that he wasn't good enough for that (12 nice points, but after consideration not nice enough to force game). The UI told you that partner is unlikely to have the straight down the middle 11 point hand.

This line seems to say that we cannot demonstrate that the UI suggests partner has a particular hand, only that he has one of two possible hands (and not, in this case, a third). So the question is whether a particular call which caters for one possibility but not the other is allowed, or whether a call must be chosen which does not cater for either possibility (if there is one). And what do we do if there isn't such a call? Absent UI, on the auction 1♠-3♠, opener might pass, might bid game, or might make a slam try. If he passes, the "if it hesitates, shoot it" crowd will argue that he's catering for responder to have stretched to bid 3, and want to adjust. If he bids game or makes a slam try, they'll argue that he's catering for responder to have undervalued his hand, and argue to adjust. Assuming the chosen action works, of course. If it was the right choice, then, goes the argument, the opponents were damaged, so we must adjust. This cannot be the right approach because, as someone pointed out upthread, it will mean there are hands the recipient of UI cannot bid at all.

I would also say that what the responder actually has in his hand is not an indicator to what is demonstrably (or otherwise) suggested. Nobody else knows what he has, they can only guess.

In theory I agree with this.

In practice a regular partner will often be able to discern what was demonstrably suggested.

[blackshoe]

That's a whole 'nother can of worms, Wayne. Let's not go there just yet.

[TimG]

I'm sorry that the way I pointed out what I saw as an apparent conflict caused problems. I did not mean to criticize anyone. David, please accept my apology and let me try again.

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

• the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and

Earlier you quoted the Law which includes "could demonstrably have been suggested".

It is possible that these two statements have different meanings. I would like to better understand this Law and would appreciate it if you would elaborate: tell me that I am wrong to think that these two statements have a different meaning, or explain to me why it does not matter that the two statements have different meanings.

Let me try and explain how I see the two statements as differing. "The chosen action to be suggested by the UI" leaves no doubt that the chosen action was suggested by the UI. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" seems to me to express a possibility rather than a sure thing.

I want to stress that I have some (considerable) difficulty translating "could demonstrably have been suggested" into plain English. And, that this difficulty that is mine could well be the cause of what I have called an "apparent conflict".

I could understand "was clearly suggested". I could also understand "could have been suggested" or "may have been suggested". But, I am having a difficult time with "could demonstrably have been suggested".

Tim

[peachy]

TimG, on Aug 2 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

I could understand "was clearly suggested". I could also understand "could have been suggested" or "may have been suggested". But, I am having a difficult time with "could demonstrably have been suggested".

Tim

This phraseology allows the ruling to be against whatever turns out successful. If 1S-...3S-4S and 4S makes, it is ruled as 3S making 4. If 1S-...3S-P and 4S does not make, it is ruled as 4S down 1.

Long time ago there was a thread on blml [where I no longer visit or post, don't need the headache...] on something like 1S-...3S-6S. Apparently opener - who was familiar with the workings of the UI laws - held a hand that was teetering between accepting and declining an invite, was frustrated that whatever he did, Pass or bid 4S, then if the result was good to them it would be taken away. So, he bid 6S - something that was definitely NOT suggested by the UI at all. But when that silly 6S results in 6S making six, the TD adjusts to 4S making six. The reason being that had there been no UI, he would never have bid 6S so the 6S bid was caused by the hesitation. Go figure.

I am as much puzzled by the UI laws as anybody else.