[blml] Clarification...

[Eric Landau]

On Jul 18, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Brian wrote:

> Nigel <Guthrie at NTLworld.com> wrote:
>
>> [I] I have always advocated psychs. They add interest and variety to
>> the game. Meredith and Collins developed them into an Art form. I
>> still maintain that you must desist from those that become implicit
>> understandings.
>
> 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.

If it were possible to write such a defintion (an open question) and  
were to actually be done, it might well be the most important advance  
in bridge jurisprudence in decades.  Not only would it solve the  
problems raised in this thread, but also a myriad of other issues  
that have been raised in BLML that have nothing to do with psyching.   
The "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" approach to  
implicit agreements has been problematic ever since the concept was  
introduced into the Law.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net