[hotShot]

campboy, on 2011-October-11, 05:32, said:

If the meaning can be reliably deduced without discussion because it is sufficiently standard then I think there is an implicit agreement to play it that way.

If this is true for people from different areas that have never played together, than I would call that common bridge knowledge.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-October-11, 06:06, said:

On the contrary, it is a special partnership understanding (unless the RA designates otherwise) because it is a convention. Law 40B1b.

I cannot accept that an implicit understanding is a convention. Otherwise why would 40B1b begin: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding?" It is clear that the "meaning" of double in this case is, as you say, an implicit agreement between partners. But that is only a partnership understanding, based on bridge common sense, and the RA is only empowered to regulate "special" partnership understandings. The orange book states "if you play that <snip>" surely meaning that there is an agreement to play the convention. I would agree that the combination of "agreeing to play the convention" and "double" would be illegal.

[bluejak]

I find the argument about OB 6A3 and Law 40A3 difficult to understand.

According to Law 40A3 you may make any call which is not the subject of a concealed partnership understanding. Nevertheless, that is not quite as broad as it sounds. Let us look at some cases.

You bid 1♥ showing 5+ ♥s and 11+ points with a normal hand with six hearts and twelve points. This is a permitted agreement to have with partner, you have it, you have disclosed it, it is legal.

You bid 1♥ showing 5+ ♥s and 11+ points with a hand with two hearts and two points. This is a permitted agreement to have with partner, you have it, you have disclosed it, it is legal. You have psyched it, which is also legal so long as your partner has no undisclosed agreement about opening this.

You bid 1♥ showing 5+ ♥s and 11+ points with a hand with two hearts and two points in third seat. Partner knows from experience that you never pass not vulnerable with fewer than three points third in hand. This is not a permitted agreement because it is undisclosed. It will also be an illegal agreement even if disclosed in many jurisdictions, eg the EBU.

You bid 1♥ showing 5+ ♠s and 11+ points with a normal hand with six spades and twelve points. This is an EBU Level 4 event and is not a permitted agreement to have with partner so even if disclosed it is not legal per Law 40B2A.

If you psyche an overcall then you use a Watson double the agreement over the Watson double is illegal per OB 6A3 and Law 40B2A. It is not a permitted agreement to have with partner. The wording of Law 40A3 does not mean that Law 40B2A does not apply.

Of course there is a judgement to be made whether this pair have an agreement [presumably implicit] as to whether they are playing a Watson double. I can see the argument either way, but I cannot see any argument that makes OB 6A3 illegal of itself.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-October-11, 07:08, said:

Of course there is a judgement to be made whether this pair have an agreement [presumably implicit] as to whether they are playing a Watson double.

I argue that an implicit partnership understanding, gained from general bridge knowledge, not from experience playing with this particular partner, is not a special partnership understanding, and is therefore outside the scope of 40B2(b). To rule against this pair, it would be necessary to judge or show that they had agreed to play the convention.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 05:11, said:

The clause is as follows, repeated for convenience:

"Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted. A partnership may not use any agreement to control a psyche. For example, if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you've bid (Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche."

The prohibition is on the agreement to control the psyche, not on the act of doing so. And the prohibition on making the double only applies if you [have the agreement that] a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you've bid. No agreement. No infraction.

You could interpret the agreement to play Stayman over a 1NT overcall as any agreement to control a psyche. I would not. Another example which ruffles the feathers of the establishment is the player that passes Drury when he has psyched One Spade third in hand. This could be interpreted as any agreement to control a psyche as well. Again I would not. The benchmark for me is that the primary purpose of the agreement must not be to control the psyche.

I agree with much of your interpretation, but not your conclusion.

This looks like a reference to conventions like Drury and the Watson X which could be used (as one of their main functions) to control psyches. Note the second sentence of the bit you quote, it does not say, "you may not agree to ..." it says "you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche."

That seems pretty clear to me.

Does it matter if they've explicitly agreed this, implicitly agreed this or general bridge knowledge indicates that this is what it should be ? I think not, any which way it is an understanding which for the purposes of the "law" should be treated no differently. I think on general principles this should particularly be the case where were the understanding an agreement it would be illegal.

Also, does it matter if you've agreed to play this double, the doubler has used it and would struggle to convince me that he meant it as anything else, so it looks like he thought he was playing it, which may well be enough.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-October-11, 07:24, said:

This looks like a reference to conventions like Drury and the Watson X which could be used (as one of their main functions) to control psyches. Note the second sentence of the bit you quote, it does not say, "you may not agree to ..." it says "you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche."

Right, but the RA is not empowered to tell people what they may bid, provided that it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. What they are doing in that clause is "allowing conditionally" the Watson double as a convention under 40B2(a). They could, equally, allow a pair to play Drury, but make the combination of a psyche and Drury illegal. That would be "allowing conditionally".

But the pair in question does not have a special partnership understanding about double. Therefore the prohibition in 40B2a does not apply, and we go back to 40A3. And the fact that he has used the double or intended it to ask for a lead other than the suit he bid is completely irrelevant.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 07:08, said:

I cannot accept that an implicit understanding is a convention. Otherwise why would 40B1b begin: "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding?" It is clear that the "meaning" of double in this case is, as you say, an implicit agreement between partners. But that is only a partnership understanding, based on bridge common sense, and the RA is only empowered to regulate "special" partnership understandings. The orange book states "if you play that <snip>" surely meaning that there is an agreement to play the convention. I would agree that the combination of "agreeing to play the convention" and "double" would be illegal.

I would have thought it stunningly obvious that 40B1b begins "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding" precisely to make it clear that partnership understandings, and hence special partnership understandings, can be implicit as well as explicit.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-October-11, 08:26, said:

I would have thought it stunningly obvious that 40B1b begins "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding" precisely to make it clear that partnership understandings, and hence special partnership understandings, can be implicit as well as explicit.

I would have thought it stunningly obvious that 40B1b begins "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners ia a partnership understanding" because it means that such an agreement is not necessarily a special partnership understanding, which is a subset of partnership understandings. The "hence" in your statement has no basis in logic.

If your opinion was correct then the Lawmakers would have written:

"Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding or special partnership understanding".

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 07:19, said:

I argue that an implicit partnership understanding, gained from general bridge knowledge, not from experience playing with this particular partner, is not a special partnership understanding, and is therefore outside the scope of 40B2(b). To rule against this pair, it would be necessary to judge or show that they had agreed to play the convention.

In the EBU, "Any agreement that is subject to a regulation in this Orange book is deemed to be a special partnership agreement." (OB 7D1b).

The EBU's authority to make this decree is provided by Law 40B1a: "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" (my italics). There's nothing to say that the RA's opinion has to be reasonable or rational.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-11, 08:55, said:

The EBU's authority to make this decree is provided by Law 40B1a: "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" (my italics). There's nothing to say that the RA's opinion has to be reasonable or rational.

If this is ruled against N/S, it seems that the TD is arguing with one voice that there is an implicit understanding because a random partner will readily understand that double asks him not to lead a heart, and with the other voice is arguing that it can be classed as special partnership understanding because a significant number of players would not understand it. That seems irrational, and suggests that all implicit understandings in a pick-up partnernship cannot be special partnership understandings. Either the EBU say it is not bridge common sense, or they say it is. If they say the latter then it cannot be a special partnership understanding. And there is an assumption in many laws that the opinion is reasonable or rational. "In the reasonable opinion" is often found in contracts.

I am a simple soul. Either they had an agreement to play Watson doubles, or they did not. If the latter, then there can be no implicit understanding, because the EBU have defined the Watson double as a special partnership understanding, as you correctly point out.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 09:15, said:

I am a simple soul.

LOL

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 08:46, said:

I would have thought it stunningly obvious that 40B1b begins "Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners ia a partnership understanding" because it means that such an agreement is not necessarily a special partnership understanding, which is a subset of partnership understandings. The "hence" in your statement has no basis in logic.

Your view makes no sense to me. The point of 40B1b is to say that any partnership understanding which is conventional or artificial is "special". Before saying this it establishes that implicit agreements are partnership understandings. The obvious inference is that the first sentence is there because without it we might think that the second sentence only applies to explicit agreements.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 09:15, said:

I am a simple soul. Either they had an agreement to play Watson doubles, or they did not. If the latter, then there can be no implicit understanding, because the EBU have defined the Watson double as a special partnership understanding, as you correctly point out.

Let's take a simpler and more clearcut example, which actually happened. I played a once-off with one of the better players at the club. She was directing, so we only had time to agree the most minimal things to facilitate playing together, which were written out by my fair hand on a convention card, and I gave her a duplicate which she had read.

I opened 1H and she responded 4D. Splinters were not on the convention card, nor had been mentioned. Splinters are far from universally played at that club, but she and I were both the kind of player who would play them with agreeable partners.

Clearly my partner, who had splintered, was hoping we had an implicit partnership understanding. If I guess right, which you might conclude I am likely to, then I think we do. You could say the same, either we have an agreement to play splinters or we don't, and it is hardly a thing one can have an implicit understanding over. Except it seems that you can. People can guess how you will take a bid, which is a conventional bid, and find themselves correct. To the other person, even though you have not played before, they can just sense that is the way you would likely play it. Of course sometimes you'll be wrong, but you try to do your best when you've never played with someone before.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-October-11, 09:28, said:

Your view makes no sense to me. The point of 40B1b is to say that any partnership understanding which is conventional or artificial is "special". Before saying this it establishes that implicit agreements are partnership understandings. The obvious inference is that the first sentence is there because without it we might think that the second sentence only applies to explicit agreements.

Why might we think that? Are we unfamiliar with basic set theory? If implicit agreements were special partnership understandings it would say so. It does not. It leaves out the word special, and we must assume this is not an error. The obvious inference is that the word special was left out because they are not special. An implicit agreement includes things which are bridge common sense, and agreements based on previous partnership experience. There is nothing to define the former as special. The latter are special if they are conventions or artificial.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-11, 09:31, said:

Let's take a simpler and more clearcut example, which actually happened. I played a once-off with one of the better players at the club. She was directing, so we only had time to agree the most minimal things to facilitate playing together, which were written out by my fair hand on a convention card, and I gave her a duplicate which she had read.

I opened 1H and she responded 4D. Splinters were not on the convention card, nor had been mentioned. Splinters are far from universally played at that club, but she and I were both the kind of player who would play them with agreeable partners.

Clearly my partner, who had splintered, was hoping we had an implicit partnership understanding. If I guess right, which you might conclude I am likely to, then I think we do. You could say the same, either we have an agreement to play splinters or we don't, and it is hardly a thing one can have an implicit understanding over. Except it seems that you can. People can guess how you will take a bid, which is a conventional bid, and find themselves correct. To the other person, even though you have not played before, they can just sense that is the way you would likely play it. Of course sometimes you'll be wrong, but you try to do your best when you've never played with someone before.

But here I would argue that your approach is just bridge common sense. If the opponent aksed what you thought 4D was, you might reply "No agreement. I would be certain that it was a raise to at least game, but more I could not tell you." The nearest definition to implicit that I could find is, I think, "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed". The something else is our whole bridge experience. So, I can accept that you have an implicit agreement, but not that you have a special partnership understanding. It is only the latter that the RA can regulate.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 09:34, said:

If implicit agreements were special partnership understandings it would say so. It does not. It leaves out the word special. We must assume this is not an error. The obvious inference is that the word special was left out because they are not special.

Either I'm missing something basic in this argument or I suspect someone is being deliberately obtuse. The obvious inference to me is that the word special was left out because they might or might not be special. All implicit agreements are partnership understandings. Some partnership understandings are special partnership understandings. Why would you then need to define all implicit agreements as special partnership understandings, rather than simply defining them all as partnership understandings and using the same definition as anywhere else to determine whether or not they are "special"?

[olegru]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-11, 09:31, said:

Let's take a simpler and more clearcut example, which actually happened. I played a once-off with one of the better players at the club. She was directing, so we only had time to agree the most minimal things to facilitate playing together, which were written out by my fair hand on a convention card, and I gave her a duplicate which she had read.

I opened 1H and she responded 4D. Splinters were not on the convention card, nor had been mentioned. Splinters are far from universally played at that club, but she and I were both the kind of player who would play them with agreeable partners.

Clearly my partner, who had splintered, was hoping we had an implicit partnership understanding. If I guess right, which you might conclude I am likely to, then I think we do. You could say the same, either we have an agreement to play splinters or we don't, and it is hardly a thing one can have an implicit understanding over. Except it seems that you can. People can guess how you will take a bid, which is a conventional bid, and find themselves correct. To the other person, even though you have not played before, they can just sense that is the way you would likely play it. Of course sometimes you'll be wrong, but you try to do your best when you've never played with someone before.

I am regularly playing on BridgeBase with picked up partners.
Every time if bidding going on similarly to your example and my partner has word "expert" in his/her profile I assume this bid is Splinter. In average I was wrong 8 times out of 10.
Did we had "special partnership agreement" two times out of ten, when picked up Partner did make a Splinter?

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2011-October-11, 09:51, said:

Either I'm missing something basic in this argument or I suspect someone is being deliberately obtuse. The obvious inference to me is that the word special was left out because they might or might not be special. All implicit agreements are partnership understandings. Some partnership understandings are special partnership understandings. Why would you then need to define all implicit agreements as special partnership understandings, rather than simply defining them all as partnership understandings and using the same definition as anywhere else to determine whether or not they are "special"?

OK I can accept that argument, but one problem is that it does not give a clear way of telling whether an implicit understanding is special or not. The explicit agreement to play a Watson double is clearly a special understanding, and there is no problem dealing with that. However the biggest contradiction is that we are saying that an implicit agreement which "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" is implicit because it "may be readily understood by a pick-up partner." I argue therefore that implicit agreements based on partnership experience can be special, but implicit agreements based on bridge logic are not.

It would also be good if implicit agreement was defined in the Laws. "... through mutual experience or awareness of the players" is the nearest they come to a definition. I would interpret that as being "as a partnership" rather than "in general bridge experience".

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 09:15, said:

If this is ruled against N/S, it seems that the TD is arguing with one voice that there is an implicit understanding because a random partner will readily understand that double asks him not to lead a heart, and with the other voice is arguing that it can be classed as special partnership understanding because a significant number of players would not understand it. That seems irrational, and suggests that all implicit understandings in a pick-up partnernship cannot be special partnership understandings. Either the EBU say it is not bridge common sense, or they say it is. If they say the latter then it cannot be a special partnership understanding. And there is an assumption in many laws that the opinion is reasonable or rational. "In the reasonable opinion" is often found in contracts.

I am a simple soul. Either they had an agreement to play Watson doubles, or they did not. If the latter, then there can be no implicit understanding, because the EBU have defined the Watson double as a special partnership understanding, as you correctly point out.

The EBU have, perhaps inadvertently, defined all agreements, whether implicit or otherwise, as special partnership understandings.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-11, 10:28, said:

The EBU have, perhaps inadvertently, defined all agreements, whether implicit or otherwise, as special partnership understandings.

"Any agreement that is subject to a regulation in this Orange book is deemed to be a special partnership agreement" is what it says. However, the wording of the clause is:

6A3 <snip> For example, if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you’ve bid Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche. (My emphasis).

"If you play" must mean "If you have the agreement that" and therefore:

If you do not play the Watson double, there is no regulation about what you are allowed to do or not do. Therefore it is not deemed a special partnership agreement.

The whole thrust of the OB is about agreements, not about matters of bridge common sense. But I rest my case.(about time, I hear)