[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 20/01/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> .................
> > Yup -- back to the dreaded "rule of coincidence".  "Objectively"...
> > "intent will not be taken into account" would seem to boil down to the
> > RoC, which says that unusual actions (based on "the standards of a
> > player's peers") by both members of a partnership leading to a
> > favorable result must be treated as an instance of a CPU, even if the
> > TD or AC adjudicating the case is 100% convinced that the partnership
> > does not have a CPU.
> >
> > IOW, the RoC may require a director to tell a player, "I am absolutely
> > certain that you do not have a CPU, but the law requires me to find you
> > guilty of having a CPU anyhow."  I can see where someone told this "may
> > be understandably upset" indeed.
> >
>
> Hold it there please!
>
> If a player in a partnership makes a psyche and his partner "happens" to
> respond with a very successful call that would have been insane had the
> psyche not been that psyche they shall have an almost impossible job trying
> to convince me (as TD) that this "coincidence" was not the result of some
> kind of CPU.
>

How then do you uphold the right of a player to make 'any call ... not
based on a partnership understanding'.

'any call' will include from time to time a successful call even when
there is no partnership understanding.

Wayne