[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 21/01/07, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *****************************************
> "Beware when the great God lets
> loose a thinker on this planet."
>             ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.
> ===========================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nigel" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
> To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Psyches & deviations
>
>
> > [Wayne Burrows]
> >> I would advocate investigating whether a concealed
> >> partnership agreement exists.  This should be easy
> > . with a few questions.  If the players turn out to be not
> > > telling the truth in response to those questions then
> > > when they are found out we hit them with a serious
> >> cheating allegation.  I would expect it would not take
> > > very many short to medium term bans to get the vast
> > > majority of players conforming to a proper disclosure
> > > of their methods.
> >>
> >> I am fully against a permissive attitude to CPUs but
> > . I am also strongly against a random regulation mandating
> > > a ruling of CPU where one does not exist.
> >>
> +=+ The Director asks questions. However, there is no
> alchemy to distinguish between identical answers given
> by two partnerships, one of which has a CPU.

It ought to be easy to distinguish.

Has this happened before?  How often has it happened? What is your
partnership agreement in this case?

If someone with a CPU answers these questions as if they have no PU
then simply they are cheating.  Except in the case of a pair that is
cheating the answers to these and further questions, if necessary,
will be significantly different.

> The legal
> advice is that the Director must determine what his opinion
> of the probability is, and if it waddles like a duck, swims
> like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it
> probably is a duck.

This advice is directly contrary to L40A which says if you have no
partnership understanding then you are entitled to waddle like a duck,
swim like a duck, fly like a duck and quack like a duck even though
you are an elephant.

There for if it is in a regulation that regulation is contrary to Law 80F.

> The SO is entitled to guide the Director
> on the ascertainment of probability and the word 'random'
> in the above is not justified.

If it is not random but calculated to convict innocent players then it
is worse than 'random'.

Wayne