Ed Murphy wrote: > Would it suffice to prevent a partnership from standing >up if any member of its basis is also a member of the basis of a >standing player?
Mm. That seems like a better approach, but beware of sowing uncertainty about who is supine. If a partnership claims to stand up, it would be good to be certain about whether that succeeds, even if we're not sure whether it's legal or if it results in later uncertainty about the legality of some judge assignments. Suppose you make all active players qualified by default (regardless of class), leave the Standing Court mechanism as it is, and add a rule that a partnership SHALL NOT change itself to a non-supine posture if any member of its basis is also a member of the basis of another non-supine player. You then need a mechanism to push over a partnership in case it illegally sat up or its basis changed such that it wouldn't now be allowed to sit up. Complex. Another option: make all active players qualified by default, leave the Standing Court mechanism as it is, and add a rule that a partnership is poorly qualified if any member of its basis is also a member of the basis of another non-supine player. Or, for a slight finesse, the basis of another otherwise-well-qualified player. The CotC has to track bases and apply the knowledge case by case, but of course partnerships are public now. -zefram
