[weejonnie]

The new laws state:

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

The old law

.. the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action. The new wording seems more direct.

♠ -
♥ KQXXXX
♦ XXXX
♣ QXXX

After 3 passes partner opens 1NT (12-14) and you transfer (2♦) into your heart suit. LHO now bids 2♠ (remember he passed 1st time round)

Partner now trances and then passes.

This pass COULD show good spades and partner wanted to double - but was worried. - so Double cannot be selected
This pass COULD show good heart values, but partner decided he didn't want to bid to the 3 level opposite a passed partner - so 3♥ cannot be selected
Alternatively the pass COULD show that partner didn't have a clear raise to 3♥ - in which case pass cannot be selected

Under the new law, however, it would seem that all three options are available.

[gordontd]

I think you need to keep the whole phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" in mind. If all three possibilities are approximately equally likely, none of them could demonstrably have been suggested over another.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-18, 07:10, said:

Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action.

I'm sure SB will find a way to turn the new wording to his advantage.

[jallerton]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-18, 07:10, said:

The new laws state:

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

The old law

.. the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action. The new wording seems more direct.

♠ -
♥ KQXXXX
♦ XXXX
♣ QXXX

After 3 passes partner opens 1NT (12-14) and you transfer (2♦) into your heart suit. LHO now bids 2♠ (remember he passed 1st time round)

Partner now trances and then passes.

This pass COULD show good spades and partner wanted to double - but was worried. - so Double cannot be selected
This pass COULD show good heart values, but partner decided he didn't want to bid to the 3 level opposite a passed partner - so 3♥ cannot be selected
Alternatively the pass COULD show that partner didn't have a clear raise to 3♥ - in which case pass cannot be selected

Under the new law, however, it would seem that all three options are available.

Whilst the UI COULD be based on any of those possibilities, one cannot demonstrate which one applies, and each possibility would suggest a different action. Thus no action could demonstrably have been suggested by the pause. Hence Responder is not constrained in the bidding.

To me, the 2007 wording seems better than the 2017 version. To say that a call "is demonstrably suggested" implies a higher hurdle then "could demonstrably have been suggested".

[gordontd]

jallerton, on 2017-July-22, 14:10, said:

To me, the 2007 wording seems better than the 2017 version. To say that a call "is demonstrably suggested" implies a higher hurdle then "could demonstrably have been suggested".

My guess is that the new wording aims to get closer to the way things have actually been ruled, which is not in accordance with a pedantic reading of the old law.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2017-July-23, 01:39, said:

My guess is that the new wording aims to get closer to the way things have actually been ruled, which is not in accordance with a pedantic reading of the old law.

The old wording left the door wide open for SB to claim that practically anything "could" demonstrably be suggested.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-July-23, 11:00, said:

The old wording left the door wide open for SB to claim that practically anything "could" demonstrably be suggested.

Indeed.