[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 09:28, said:

I think you're reading more into this than is wise. I expect that what actually happened was that they discussed a few examples, got most of the way to a complete agreement, couldn't agree on the extreme cases, and intentionally left it vague.

That is quite possible. I could try asking them on BLML, although they are careful never to give an "official" answer. I think it is up to the TD to decide whether a call that is "impossible to contemplate" is an LA. "May" allows him to go either way.

[barmar]

Can someone find the context of the WBFLC discussion, I think it should shed light on their intent (similar to reading the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, as they describe what was going on in the framers' minds). I suspect it was about players "taking a flyer" when confronted by UI, because they can't figure out what their ethical obligations are. Or it may have been intended specifically for something like this thread -- players shouldn't be able to get around the UI laws by doing something random or ridiculous.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-June-07, 15:33, said:

Can someone find the context of the WBFLC discussion, I think it should shed light on their intent (similar to reading the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, as they describe what was going on in the framers' minds). I suspect it was about players "taking a flyer" when confronted by UI, because they can't figure out what their ethical obligations are. Or it may have been intended specifically for something like this thread -- players shouldn't be able to get around the UI laws by doing something random or ridiculous.

If that had been their concern, they could have made a call that was "impossible to contemplate" a breach of 16B or 73C. They did not. gnasher quoted the minute in question; I do not know of the background to it, other than possibly the Reno minute referred to in another thread.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2013-June-07, 15:33, said:

Can someone find the context of the WBFLC discussion, I think it should shed light on their intent (similar to reading the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, as they describe what was going on in the framers' minds). I suspect it was about players "taking a flyer" when confronted by UI, because they can't figure out what their ethical obligations are. Or it may have been intended specifically for something like this thread -- players shouldn't be able to get around the UI laws by doing something random or ridiculous.

There's no published context beyond what I posted a week or so ago in one of Paul's other threads. The minutes are here:

http://www.worldbrid...2010philly1.pdf

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 16:23, said:

There's no published context beyond what I posted a week or so ago in one of Paul's other threads. The minutes are here:

http://www.worldbrid...2010philly1.pdf

I note that the committee had addressed a 19-page agenda. That might have given some insight to minute 3.