[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.

[Pict]

But consider meaning 3 in your list where, for example, 'is there a choice' or even 'is there choice' is defined as more than one option or alternative.

[campboy]

In meaning three, the choice (there is still only one) is the set of options. The options themselves are not choices in that sense. It's cognate with "menu".

[gnasher]

I've considered it, but I don't see what it has to do with Frances's point. In the phrase "There is a choice of actions", "choice" is singular, and refers to a set of possible actions. It isn't a synonym for "alternative".

It is no more correct to say "we have several choices" than to say "we have an alternative of actions".

[Pict]

'There is choice' is directly equivalent to 'there is more than one option' and directly equivalent to 'there is more than one alternative'.

The expressions 'how much choice did you have' and 'how many choices did you have can be equivalent (though of course they may not be depending on context.

I would not regard it as American to think that choices, options and alternatives could be used as equivalents in Bridge.

[blackshoe]

All this yammering about the meaning of "choice" or "alternative" aside, it seems to me the main point here is that it seems silly that the lawmakers used a particular phrase ("logical alternatives"), then decided they didn't really mean it, and then try to "fix" it not by choosing a different phrase, but by redefining the meaning of the phrase.

Keep in mind that if there's a way for somebody to screw up applying this new definition, somebody will.