[blml] Fwd: Re: Encrypted signals

[Alain Gottcheiner]

>Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:21:44 +0200
>To: Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net>
>From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
>Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals
>
>At 14:25 28/07/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>IBTD with Alain.  Back when they were still legal, I played systemic
>>psyches (which are not really "psychs" at all) with "psychic
>>controls".  My openings were in fact in the range 0-5 or 13+, and the
>>1/1 and 2/1 responses were not forcing if partner held 0-5.  All of
>>this was regularly, properly and fully disclosed to my
>>opponents.  Alain appears to be asserting that were such methods were
>>to become legal and I started playing them again, making me one of
>>those "systemic psychers" he refers to, that I would not alert my
>>opponents.  That could be taken as a serious insult.
>
>I don't intend insulting anybody, I just say what I've seen when two 
>Belgian pairs (independently, as it seems) decided to play psychic controls.
>
>The fact is, methods that would pose many ethical problems because players 
>do not use them properly will often be banned. If honest players feel 
>insulted by this, I'm sorry, and SO's are, too.
>
>Several SO's are thinking about banning Ghestem 2-suiters because they 
>give regular headaches when somebody errs. This is the same situation.
>And the forcing-but-not-forcing responses, even if fully disclosed, are 
>also very difficult to defend against, much more than mini-NTs. That's 
>another (albeit bad, IMNSHO) reason to disallow them.
>
>This is all a question of degree.
>On the 0-to-10 scale of problems to the oponents, controlled psyches earn 
>a '8'.
>On the 0-to-10 scale of problems to the TDs, they earn a '9'.
>
>MOSCITO openings earn repectively a '3' and a '1'.
>mini-NTs earn a '6' and a '6'.
>Ghestem earns a '4' and a '9'.
>
>This means controlled psyches should be classified yellow (rather than 
>banned), and perhaps Ghestem too.
>
>Best regards,
>
>    Alain.
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>    Alain.