[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Brian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Grattan, 

So what you're actually saying (and so does Sven, in his reply to
Nigel's post) is that psyching is basically illegal in anything other
than a new partnership - that you're more or less on the ACBL's "One
psyche per position per partner per lifetime". 

Let me give you an example. My regular online partner and I
have played something close to 100,000 hands over the past 10 years,
initially on OKBridge, now on BridgeBase. Over that period, she may
have seen me psyche (guesstimate) 400-500 times. It's obviously a
logical nonsense to say that she's not aware of the fact that I psyche
occasionally. 

Moving on, you say that the fact that her actions have been entirely
normal is no defence. What kind of defence *IS* there, then? What
exactly is it that you want her to do, if bidding normally is no
defence? Or is it just the case that if a regular partnership is
accused of a CPU when one of them psyches, they should just accept it?
If so, then what prevents unscrupulous opponents making allegations of a
CPU *EVERY* time a player psyches, knowing that the psycher has no
defence unless it turns out to be a new partnership? 

It seems to me that the Laws are contradictory. Psyches are part of the
game, but the Laws you quote below mean that you're going to get nailed
for it each and every time your opponents complain. Given your WBF Code
of Practice, it looks like the WBF would actually like to ban
psyching, at least by anything other than new partnerships, but hasn't
got the collective balls to say so. 

Now, please prove me wrong. Take an *experienced* partnership.
Construct a hand where one of them psyches - and then please explain,
in English rather than Grattanese, just exactly how that partnership is
supposed to extablish that the psyche was a legitimate one, given that
partner's actions were entirely normal isn't sufficient. 

As above, my partner and I play online, where self-alerts are the
standard. What would you have me do in order to give opponents the
"equal and timely awareness" that you require - explain (for example)
my 1H opener as 5+H, 11-15 HCP, but on 0.05% of hands, I opened it with
only four hearts and/or 8-10 HCP, on 0.02% of hands I had 0-2 hearts
and 8-10 HCP, on another 0.02% of hands, I had 5 hearts but only 0-3
HCP, while on 0.01% of hands, I had 0-2 hearts AND only 0-3 HCP - etc.
etc. 

Apart from the length of time taken to key in all this information,
what exactly is oppo supposed to do with it? Play me for one of the
psyches as opposed to the 99%+ of times that I'll have a genuine 1H
opener? Must we all keep databases of the hand records in order to be
able to specify our (our partner's) psyching tendencies? 

You're making me think Nigel has a point with his repeated demands for
clear and unambiguous Laws - it seems to me to be fundamental to any
game that the players are entitled (if they put the work in) to
understand the rules under which they're playing. Telling them that
they can do something in one law while telling them they're going to
get nailed for doing it in a different law (CoP) seems to make that
understanding impossible to acheive, unless you boil it down to "Don't
psyche, even though it's supposed to be permitted". 


Brian. 

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:59:49 +0100
>"Grattan Endicott" <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> +=+ I think Alain should disabuse himself of the 
> misconception that an implicit understanding 
> exists only if a player will take his partner's habit 
> into account.  Laws 40B, 75A and 75C provide.to 
> the contrary.  For the avoidance of doubt the WBF 
> Code of Practice says this: "A partnership may not 
> defend itself against an allegation that its psychic 
> action is based upon an understanding by claiming 
> that, although the partner had an awareness of the 
> possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the 
> partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have 
> been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled 
> to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement,
> explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice 
> of action and for this reason the understanding must 
> be disclosed."
>         If through partnership experience the partner 
> is aware of his partner's habit he must disclose that 
> awareness. If he fails to do so and the information
> turns out to be crucial for the opponent's choice of 
> action redress is due for any damage and in his 
> discretion the Director may apply a procedural 
> penalty. 
>                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+. 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
> To: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>; <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat 
>                (was Equity) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
> 
> 
> >  an habit creates implicit understandings only 
> > if a player takes this habit into account, which 
> > is not the case of Herman's partners.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


- -- 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGnimgX39R2QaHMdMRAohDAJ9rX+oapKsxS25iuRwQvk6fdf0bJQCfYnPK
H7EFALAtEGk6emKyx19A578=
=suYd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----