[blml] Clarification...

[Brian]

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

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:11:13 +0100
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
> [also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
> *****************************************
> "He makes simple things look easy."
>         ++ Ray Wilkins, 
>             of a star performer .......++
> ===============================
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nigel" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
> To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [blml] Clarification...
> 
> 
> > [Brian Meadows]
> > In that case, you need to write a definition of exactly 
> > when something becomes an implicit understanding. 
> > Lots of luck in writing it, because there is something 
> > which is *definitely* going to depend on the class 
> > of players involved.
> > 
> > [nigel]
> > I agree with Brian  that the WBFLC need to define 
> > observable criteria that indicate a psychic tendency 
> > has become an implicit understanding.
> > 
> +=+ The Code of Practice sought to give guidance on 
> the matter. Perhaps some blml researcher will find the 
> relevant passage. 


I assume this is what you mean...

<paste>

A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding.
No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful
action. A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed
by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the
implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that
such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the
partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in
the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only
if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances
is established:

1. similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several
occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the
actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified
when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or 

2. in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the
partnership and it is considered the memory of it is so fresh that it
cannot have faded from mind; or 

3. psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with
such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly
aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or 

4. the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some
significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic
call.

</paste>


Which, IMHO, is *far* too woolly a definition to be of any use to
players. 

To comply with section 1), I must know exactly which psychic
calls have "faded from my partner's mind" and which haven't.
Mind-reading time, anyone? 

Section 2) is equally useless - I can guess who does the
considering, but using what criteria? Aren't players entitled to know? 

Section 3) - just as woolly. Basically it says that the rules can be
made up as desired, or damn close to it. What the hell is "such
frequency, and sufficiently recently" supposed to mean if not that? 

To make these rules/CoP/whatever in any way fair to the players, you
need something along the lines of 

1) Psyching more than X times in any N boards is considered to create
an implicit understanding. 

2) Psyching the same call on more than X% of occasions is considered to
create an implicit understanding. 


And so on - I'm sure you get the idea. IMO, if you're going to consider
that players create implicit agreements by psyching, then players have
the right to a much clearer idea of where the boundaries are than
currently appears to be the case. 

No, it's not easy to do that. I've no idea what the values of X and N
above should be, for example. Just pick a couple of numbers out of the
air, if need be, because that will be far better than all the
(location dependent, no doubt) suches and sufficientlies that we appear
to have at the moment.  


Brian. 

- -- 

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

iD8DBQFGnpsUX39R2QaHMdMRAkFKAJ4+o5e4D2cIn4UnKI//76rvlNWxZACgovSr
+Kt+TpmOkshO+0zt1CQEml4=
=N73L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----