ASA Question #39

[Dakota]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Yet, I think it is a very poor question because it leaves too many things unclear to the test taker. That is the essence of a bad question - lack of clarity.

A good question should neither be a test in testmanship nor require the test taker to parse words and discern their hidden meaning. It should only test the understanding of the pertinent point.

OK, David. Which points of hidden meaning, exactly, would have changed the ruling on this play? What is the pertinent point being tested, in your view, that is compromised by the "lack of clarity?" Remember, this was an ASA test - ASA rules only, please.

No matter how you flesh out this scenario, the ruling is the same. You may not like the ruling, or you may think it is unfair under some "fleshed out" scenarios, but the ruling itself is clear and unaffected.

Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.

If fact, as a test question, it is quite good, because it requires the test taker to consider various possibilities, due to the unstated details, but to always end up with the same ruling.