[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-03, 13:19, said:

Law 16 is poorly written. I don't believe it was the intention of the WBFLC to suggest that the chosen action must be a logical action, just that the alternative action(s) be logical.

But it is difficult to tell which of the 2007 Laws are poorly written and which are poorly conceived. All we can know for sure is they must be one or the other.

Perhaps they should be retitled "The Poor Laws".

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-March-04, 05:26, said:

However, I was not aware that there is no longer a requirement for it to be demonstrably suggested before it is disallowed.

Where did you get this?

[campboy]

I think that if we go strictly by the letter of the law we adjust, even if we do not believe that 16B1a prohibits illogical calls. Consider law 16B3.

Quote

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

Now for the purpose of calling the TD under 16B3 it does not matter whether the action chosen was logical: all that is required is that it could have been suggested and that there were logical alternatives to it. In order for the director to adjust "an infraction of law" must have occurred, but it does not say "an infraction of law 16B1a"; if the law that the TD judges was broken was 73C he is still required to adjust the score.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-04, 05:54, said:

Where did you get this?

As I was not aware of it, from nowhere. But bluejak leaves out demonstrably: "If he chooses an action which is more successful than an LA, and it is suggested by the UI over that LA, then you adjust."

And Dburn suggests that perhaps the ACBL would not require the bid to be demonstrably suggested either:
Of course, even the ACBL fiat does not mean that one automatically finds against South in the case in question here; to do that, the minute would have had to read:
"Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a demonstrably suggested logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1."
but perhaps that is what they meant.

I don't see what problem we all have in adjusting under 73C. This is clearly not a 16B case. In fact 16B adds nothing to 73C; It is a bit like having a sign "No parking at any time" and then a plate under it "No vehicles over 10 foot long". And it is ludicrous that a player must not select a bid that is "demonstrably suggested" but the Gadarene swine are summoned by the opponents if someone makes a bid that merely "could have been suggested".

[gnasher]

Actually, for the ACBL fiat to have any continuing relevance, it would have had to have read:

"Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player be considered ..."