[blml] Clarification...

[raija]

>>
>> > [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.
>> >
[Grattan Endicott responded}
>> +=+ The Code of Practice sought to give guidance on
>> the matter. Perhaps some blml researcher will find the
>> relevant passage.
>
>
Brian again:

> 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.


Hi,

I think Brian brings very valid points.  But how would the numbers be 
collected for the  X's and N's  of _whatever the formulas might be_ .   And 
by whom?  Percentages particularly would require recording of all deals a 
potential psycher has played, but then, all players are potential 
psychers....

Poor as the present system may be, recordkeeping and/or enforcement of both 
specific rates of frequency and/or of percentages of psyches in all played 
hands, will be impossible and therefore even a poorer method.  I believe 
that if a regulation exists, it should be possible to enforce it.  Something 
that cannot be enforced, should not be regulated because it  would diminish 
the value and cause disrespect of all regulation if it consists items that 
will not or cannot be enforced.  IMHO.

Raija