Help
barmar, on 2015-July-13, 10:33, said:
That method of dealing with UI is frequently recommended by experts. Try to ignore the UI (as L73 requires), and if the TD decides that you violated L16B accept the adjustment with grace.
The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.
The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.
I'm glad somebody else feels this way. My college roommate is now an ACBL National Director and we've discussed this. We've talked about a large number of ACBL appeals cases and in a significant majority of them my analysis of what is a logical alternative, and what is suggested by the UI, has been so far from what the appeals committee decided and what the commentators discussed as to make my attempts to work it out almost meaningless. I'm willing to take a bad score in UI cases if there are LAs and my choice is suggested. I'll take the committee's judgement with good grace. But I don't want to take a bad score because I misjudged what the LAs actually are.
Yes, I'm aware that this contravenes the letter of the law - but I think it's a practical solution to a difficult situation.
