RE: Quod licet Jovi non licet cuniculi

On 3/1/03, Sven Pran wrote:

>A very interesting proposal indeed and it really has some merits.

Some, perhaps. But the implicit requirement that players should
understand what a decision tree is, and how to construct and use one,
and to do so at the table, is not one of them.

>However, the purpose of claiming is to save time, not to demonstrate
>the ability to look ahead. So any claim where it may take more time to
>understand and accept the claim than it would have taken simply to
>play it out (rapidly) should, and in fact is discouraged by the laws.
>(Negative inference from L74B4).

Um. Here, you expect players to be able to judge the ability to follow a
line of play of opponents whom they may have just met. I am not sure
there is any justification for that requirement in the laws, 74B4
included.

>This is one of the reasons why we still in Norway do not attempt to
>find any "excuse" for awarding the claimer a trick he could lose
>because of some silly but still possible error on his part. Apparently
>we are among the more restrictive interpreters of Law 70.

Norwegian methods do have the advantage of simplicity. I think I like
them, but frankly my mind is awhirl trying to get a handle on all these
arguments. I may start another thread. 

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml