[BLML] tangled

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sun Mar 27 00:50:34 CET 2016

So, as I understand it, two players might claim mispull in about the same situations, and you and Herman will look at one and decide the player is telling the truth and rule in his favor.

You will look at the other and say "I think you are not telling the truth, even though you might think you are," and rule against that player.

Yes, I do not want to be in that kitchen.

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:57:53 -0400, Matthias Berghaus <Ziffbridge at t-online.de> wrote:

> No. If  don`t "know" they mispulled, then I rule they didn`t. Especially
> in this mispull-situations you can read a lot out of how and when they
> react, and if they don`t react they are unlikely to have mispulled. The
> liars are usually not the biggest problem, more difficult are those who
> subconsciously rationalized what  they did or didn`t do. They tell the
> truth as they perceive it. They do _not_ lie, they tell you what they
> think (by now) has happened. Problem is, that is not what _really_
> happened... Example: you ask players how long some opp hesitated. You
> ask n players, you get n answers. You let someone demonstrate the pause,
> they all agree. Time is most difficult to tell without chronometers...
> Am 26.03.2016 um 01:23 schrieb Robert Frick:
>> Yeah. Okay, the player claims mispull on a Blackwood response. I calculate there's about a 2/3 chance it was an error, not a mispull. (You can supply your own percentage if you calculate differently.) In this situation, do you try to figure out which players are lying and which are not?
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list