[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Brian]

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

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:03:26 +0200
"Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no> wrote:

> 
> Short form: A psyche is not legal unless partner becomes at least as
> surprised as opponents.
> 

And I have real trouble in understanding how this short form does not
equate to barring psyches, Sven. My regular partner knows I psyche
occasionally. Random opponents do not. How, then, can a psyche be "at
least" as surprising to my partner as to an opponent? My partner has
*got* to have seen more of them than any pair of opponents, unless I
reserve all my psyches for one specific pair of opponents.

IMO, the WBF should write it into Law that psychic habits must be
disclosed, and impose that all the way down the tree (fat chance of
THAT happening! :-(( ). Partners have to be very careful *not* to take
advantage of any possibility of a psyche, at such point as they can
deduce that a psyche must have occurred from the bidding it's up to
them to alert opponents, and there's a defined minimum frequency below
which psyches *cannot* be considered to have become an implicit
agreement. 

This sort of scheme surely *has* to be better than leaving it to the
whims of an individual TD, or an individual NCBO? And better than
banning psyches outright, which seems to be the only other way to level
the playing field.


Brian. 

- -- 

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

iD8DBQFGpmgyX39R2QaHMdMRAsVzAJ9THBX6RxL+ZmJc4jaX3yPTA2VAUACgmCyt
OxAitZhVJqPsgdUNu0xB+vg=
=hl8K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----