Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ut-sally!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: ESP and bridge(Re: PSI: lack of proof, and counter challange
Message-ID: <200@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 14:05:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.200
Posted: Wed Jul  9 14:05:03 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 02:41:24 EDT
References: <484@ulowell.UUCP> <529@hope.UUCP> <512@ulowell.UUCP> <715@oakhill.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 25
Keywords: proof, countre proof.
Summary: Why would they worry?

In article <715@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes:
>[...]
>
>One of my roomates at the University was a bridge fanatic.  He explained to me
>that at tournaments each individual had to sign a statement as to whether
>they used ESP in their playing.  This struck me as odd at the time (1968)
>since that was the first time I had heard of any organization acting as though
>ESP was a serious subject.  Maybe they were simply doing a survey out of
>curiousity?
>
>Does anyone know if this still goes on (or why they ever did it in the first
>place?)
>
>  -- Dave Trissel  {siesmo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet

I do know that an uncle of mine had the obnoxious habit of occaisionally
bidding 7 and taking the grand slam each time.  He was a scientist as well.
Although he would jokingly admit to having ESP, he couldn't explain how,
but he could tell by the third bid what everyone had.

If someone claims to use ESP in a strategy game, it is possible that even
though the nature of this ability might be quite scientific, it might
also be an "unfair" advantage.

Did your friend tell you how many of the "psychics" won, and how often?