[matmat]

I know the ACBL doesn't like it too much when you psych a 2♣ opener, for example. What i don't know is whether other bridge bodies outlaw psychs of strong artificial bids as well?

[gwnn]

Romania outlaws it, and I think it's because it's European standard.

[the hog]

Australia outlaws them as well.

[gwnn]

The_Hog, on Feb 2 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

Australia outlaws them as well.

if that's the case, the topic may be closed! it's most definitely banned everywhere!

[Cascade]

The New Zealand regulation has an interesting caveat the bid has to be unlimited.

This means for example that you could psyche a strong but limited conventional opening. For example if you played some form of Benjamised Acol 2♣ as Game Force and 2♦ as 8-playing tricks (but limited) then the 2♦ opening could be legitimately psyched.

[skjaeran]

gwnn, on Feb 2 2008, 06:49 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 2 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

Australia outlaws them as well.

if that's the case, the topic may be closed! it's most definitely banned everywhere!

Not true. They're not outlawed in Norway. I'm not sure, but believe that's the case in Denmark and Sweden too.

Btw, I don't subscribe to the notion that L40D allows such banning - or rather that it should do so, as it's clear that the WBFLC believe this to be legal.

[FrancesHinden]

They are no longer banned in England, although they used to be.

[helene_t]

They have not been outlawed in the Netherlands in my time, e.g. the last ten years. Not sure if they have been outlawed before that time.

It does not happen very often. But a couple of years ago I read of a board where Muller-deWijs had a spectacular win when opps were fooled by their own suspension that Muller's 1♣ opening was a psyche.

[Fluffy]

In Spain they are outlawed also, not that it matters much since only foreings psyche here

[han]

LOL fluffy.

[barmar]

skaeran, on Feb 2 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

[Btw, I don't subscribe to the notion that L40D allows such banning - or rather that it should do so, as it's clear that the WBFLC believe this to be legal.

That's irrelevent now. The new 2007 Laws specifically say that this type of restriction is allowed.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Feb 3 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

skaeran, on Feb 2 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

[Btw, I don't subscribe to the notion that L40D allows such banning - or rather that it should do so, as it's clear that the WBFLC believe this to be legal.

That's irrelevent now. The new 2007 Laws specifically say that this type of restriction is allowed.

Its not quite irrelevant as as far as I am aware most Zones have not yet implemented the new laws.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Feb 2 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

barmar, on Feb 3 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

skaeran, on Feb 2 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

[Btw, I don't subscribe to the notion that L40D allows such banning - or rather that it should do so, as it's clear that the WBFLC believe this to be legal.

That's irrelevent now. The new 2007 Laws specifically say that this type of restriction is allowed.

Its not quite irrelevant as as far as I am aware most Zones have not yet implemented the new laws.

The Danish BF implemented the new laws on January 1st. Guess they're the first to do so. Our federation haven't decided the date yet, it will probably be June 1st or July 1st.

[Cascade]

As pointed out elsewhere 1st June is a Sunday which could disrupt weekend tournaments.

It happens to be a long weekend in New Zealand and there are three congresses being held that weekend.

Last I heard it is the date that has been chosen to implement the new laws in New Zealand (Zone 7). So we look forward to playing one day of a congress under one set of rules and the next two days with different rules.

My understanding was that it was Zones not countries that chose the date of implementation. This is what it says in the preface to the 2007 laws "Zonal authorities may implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th September 2008."

Another moot point that appeals to my pedantic nature - is 1st January 2008 after 1st January 2008? I would have thought not.

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on Feb 3 2008, 02:03 AM, said:

As pointed out elsewhere 1st June is a Sunday which could disrupt weekend tournaments.

It happens to be a long weekend in New Zealand and there are three congresses being held that weekend.

Last I heard it is the date that has been chosen to implement the new laws in New Zealand (Zone 7). So we look forward to playing one day of a congress under one set of rules and the next two days with different rules.

My understanding was that it was Zones not countries that chose the date of implementation. This is what it says in the preface to the 2007 laws "Zonal authorities may implement the Code at any time after 1st January 2008 but before 30th September 2008."

Another moot point that appeals to my pedantic nature - is 1st January 2008 after 1st January 2008? I would have thought not.

The EBL implements the new laws for the European Championships and extend the decision for national tournaments to each individual NBO - the only sensible solution.

As have been discussed elsewhere, implementing during a weekend isn't really a problem. Just have a regulation saying that events starting before that implementation date and ending on or after it, play under the old law (or implements the new law on the starting date).

I doubt you'll play under different laws on one congress.

I'm just a litttle less pedantic than you and include 1st January and 30th September in the allowed implementation period. Agree that it should say any time in the period 1st January through 30th September.

[Free]

Belgium outlaws them as well, although I haven't seen it written anywhere.

[barmar]

Even if they haven't implemented the new laws yet, would you really expect any of the SOs to change their existing policies based on convincing them that they're not authorized by the old laws? So even if the old laws are still officially in effect, they're irrelevant as far as this is concerned. Any work that their conventions committees are doing now would almost certainly use the new Laws as their basis.