Vampyr Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 The person who posted that psyches and misbids are no difference has misunderstood this vital difference.They are different yes, but it would be much better if they were dealt with as if they were not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 The person who posted that psyches and misbids are no difference has misunderstood this vital difference.They are different yes, but it would be much better if they were dealt with as if they were not. A good player may psych, infrequently. This is within the laws and should be expected (though not, perhaps, against "bunnies"). A poor player or a beginner is likely to misbid, and do it frequently. If you tell such players that misbidding is illegal, they'll find some other game to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 I can think of no reason to treat deliberate acts and unintentional acts the same way. Why is it better? Suppose a player accidentally sees a card of another player. Do you really want to treat it the same way as if he deliberately looked at another player's cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 A poor player or a beginner is likely to misbid, and do it frequently. If you tell such players that misbidding is illegal, they'll find some other game to play.Do not forget that we are talking about a very small number of opening bids, so that it is rather unlikely to happen anyway. In fact I would guess that in most jurisdictions, there are no restrictions on what you may psyche -- although in some places it is in effect illegal to make some misbids -- eg Ghestem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 I can think of no reason to treat deliberate acts and unintentional acts the same way. Why is it better? Suppose a player accidentally sees a card of another player. Do you really want to treat it the same way as if he deliberately looked at another player's cards?This argument goes both ways. If you revoke, make an insufficient bid, bid or lead out of turn, etc accidentally, it will be treated the same as if you had done it intentionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossoneri Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 I can think of no reason to treat deliberate acts and unintentional acts the same way. Why is it better? Suppose a player accidentally sees a card of another player. Do you really want to treat it the same way as if he deliberately looked at another player's cards?This argument goes both ways. If you revoke, make an insufficient bid, bid or lead out of turn, etc accidentally, it will be treated the same as if you had done it intentionally. I can only see one good reason for making insufficient bids, bids/leads out of turn or revoking intentionally, and that will probably be treated by Law 23. So, would you argue for the same penalty for manslaughter and murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 15, 2010 Report Share Posted February 15, 2010 And how does that affect rulings where it is different? I just do not see the connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.