[blml] Clarification...

[Brian]

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


Apologies to Raija, this went personally as opposed to going to the
list, which is what I intended. 


Brian. 


 On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:21:05 -0700
"raija" <mustikka at charter.net> wrote:

> 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, 

Nonsense. It would require recording the *psyches*, plus a total
(approximate) number of boards. And the total number of boards could be
easily enough calculated (at least at club level, which is still the
overwhelming majority of bridge) from the results of events *IF THE
NEED AROSE*. 


> but then, all
> players are potential psychers....
> 

True. But potential psyches are not psyches. I could *potentially* bid
7NT on every hand I play. Does this matter in the slightest when I
don't? 


> 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.

Well, as you'll see from another post, I still think some form of
quantitative indication is needed - which is why I thought I'd better
write a delayed reply to this post. I understand your view, but you're
a long way from convincing me that what I suggest is impossible, or
even merely impractical. 


Brian. 

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

iD8DBQFGoJ5VX39R2QaHMdMRAmkvAJ48u8MGA3mjgDiK7K+oy6MoI5GaGQCgrDZ7
ztV+uIfiasQwQrpCydmPSlE=
=FB9O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----