[blml] Clarification...

[Nigel]

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

[Raija]
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.

[nige1]
I advocate slightly different and much more controversial rules...

[A] If, like Alain and Sven, you *never* allow for partner's psych, 
then it is so hard to prove a concealed partnership understanding, 
that I would declassify the psych into an ordinary call, ignoring any 
damage inflicted on opponents.

That is, I would consider only *fielded* psychs.

[B] As in the case of most Bridge rules, I think a director must rule 
whether of not a psych was fielded on the *balance of probability*.

Evidence from a single board may suffice. (Cries of "rule of 
coincidence" and shrieks of protest from the ACBL).

[C] In unclear casees, I feel that EBU-style psych classification and 
recording would be ideal -- provided that the WBFLC enforce it 
worldwide (local privacy, libel, and data-protection legislation 
permitting).

It would be a player's duty to report and record his psych (signed by 
the other players at the table).

The director could consult the global database to check psych-history.