[gnasher]

OB 3A1 (for example), begins "All agreements, including implicit understandings ..." 3A1 is a regulation. Therefore all agreements are special partnership understandings.

[AlexJonson]

While I wish I could agree with Lamford in this case, I can't.

If I make a double in this scenario that I hope will be treated as a Watson double, and partner treats it that way, then I'd expect to be found against by the TD as using a prohibited agreement.

[mycroft]

Lots of what you've said makes perfect sense. However, that doesn't make the conclusion any more correct.

It is basic set theory that "special" partnership understandings must be a subset of partnership understandings. There is *nothing* in either the Laws or set theory that says it has to be a proper subset. In fact, it is explicitly up to the RA to define special partnership understandings, and the EBU as an RA have. There is nothing in the laws or the regulations that states that implied partnership understandings are any less special than explicit partnership understandings.

It would be just as obvious to state that implied partnership understandings can be special or not, rather than your conclusion that if not states yes, then no.

And further proof - from the laws and regulations - of your last sentence being incorrect is that several RAs have regulated natural calls that are not calls at the one level with a king less than an average hand, and that that regulation has been deemed legal. In fact, before 2008, when it *wasn't* legal - when one could only regulate conventions and very weak 1-level openings - it was deemed legal to regulate conventions *after* those natural calls - even to the point of banning *any*. And that with the new version of the Laws, we have moved from "conventions" to "SPUs" as being within the RA's regulating purview - explicitly so that this "Endicott fudge" was no longer necessary for the RAs to do what they saw fit and that the WBF thought was appropriate.

Yes, this means that they can ban 5-card majors. They can regulate that you can only open 1M that by agreement will not contain only 4 cards in that major if you choose never to psych that call. They can say that you can only open 1m that by agreement will not contain less than 4 cards if you choose never to psych that call. Nobody *would* - but they can.

As to the "specialness" of lead-avoiding doubles of 3NT, I bet that if I played with any of my regular partners or any of their regular partners, it would have been obvious without discussion. However, if I played with that person in the 199er game (assuming I were allowed to), that at most 50% of the people would guess that this could mean anything other than "I have HAKQxxx, they've bid 3NT without a stopper". Screamingly obvious if you think about it - but that doesn't mean that "everyone" has; therefore, special (in the generic sense, rather than the EBU regulation sense).

[Trinidad]

I just can't get the idea out of my head that the EBU is overregulating bridge.

Rik

[mrdct]

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.

The prohibition is not on the agreement itself, but on the use of such an agreement to control a psyche. Watson is a completely legal convention, but you are prohibited from using it to control a psyche. As several posters have pointed out, agreements can be implicit aswell as explicit and the Orange Book specifically includes "implicit understandings" in the definition of "agreements" in OB 3 A 1.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 03:56, said:

So, if you overcalled with a 15-17 NT on ♠ xx ♥ xx ♦ xxx ♣ J109xxx, playing methods on, you would rule that you were not allowed to pass Stayman?

I think there would be quite a strong argument that passing stayman after psyching a 1NT overcall with a weak hand with long clubs is an illegal use of the stayman convention in the EBU. It's similar to opening a GF 2♣ with a weak two in ♦ hand and then passing partner's expected waiting bid of 2♦ - not allowed in jurisdictions where psychic controls are illegal.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-11, 10:48, said:

OB 3A1 (for example), begins "All agreements, including implicit understandings ..." 3A1 is a regulation. Therefore all agreements are special partnership understandings.

I submit that if there is no agreement over double, there is no implicit understanding which needs to be "through mutual experience or awareness of the players". The players were questioned in this case and had no mutual experience of a Watson double, and the partner of the doubler had not heard of it.

I think my argument should have first addressed whether there was an implicit understanding at all. There was not. I went round the houses in arguing that an implicit understanding was not a special partnership agreement, and agree that I lost the battle - but not the war. Only agreements can be regulated not bids. If a two-card club suit is illegal by agreement - say the Palmer Bayer, then a player can still open a two-card club suit, if his partner expects it to be three. And no RA can stop this.

There can be no prohibition on any bid when there is no concealed partnership understanding. Agreements can be prohibited but not bids, and the combination of the illegal or conditionally allowed agreement and the bid is indeed an infraction.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-October-11, 16:14, said:

I think there would be quite a strong argument that passing stayman after psyching a 1NT overcall with a weak hand with long clubs is an illegal use of the stayman convention in the EBU. It's similar to opening a GF 2♣ with a weak two in ♦ hand and then passing partner's expected waiting bid of 2♦ - not allowed in jurisdictions where psychic controls are illegal.

Again the pass of Stayman is absolutely allowed under the right of the player to make any bid which is not subject to a concealed partnership understanding. If this Law had said "except as covered by 40B2a" it would have said so. 40A3 seems pretty clear to me, but as with all the Laws it is unclear what happens if two contradict each other. 40C1 applies of course, but in this case the players had not played together before, so, in my opinion, could not have an implicit understanding.

It seems clear from the occasions that they are mentioned that implicit understandings arise from partnership experience and are nothing to do with general bridge knowledge.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 18:04, said:

I submit that if there is no agreement over double, there is no implicit understanding which needs to be "through mutual experience or awareness of the players". The players were interviewed in this case and had no mutual experience of a Watson double, and the partner of the doubler had not heard of it.

Despite what the players may have said when interviewed, it is quite clear that North interpreted the double precisely as South had intended it with both players relying on their "mutual experience or awareness" to arrive at essentially the same meaning of South's double. This is prima facie evidence that North-South had an implicit agreement to treat unexpected doubles of freely bid games as "something funny is going on here so have a good think about making the non-obvious lead". Such an implicit agreement is completely legal in the ordinary course of events, but it is illegal to use it as a psychic control in the EBU.

I'm sure lamford has a transcript of the interrogation of North and South and can fill in the gaps below:

To North: "What was your interpretation of South's double?"
Answer:

To North: "Why did you lead a ♠?"
Answer:

To North: "Did South's double inform your choice of lead?"
Answer:

To North: "What would you have lead if South had not doubled?"
Answer:

To South: "What were you intending to convey with your double?"
Answer:

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 18:04, said:

There can be no prohibition on any bid when there is no concealed partnership understanding. Agreements can be prohibited but not bids.

I don't see what concealment has to do with this case, but the Orange Book is quite clear that you are not allowed to use (i.e. pull the relevant bid out of your bidding box) a psychic control. Also, certain bids can be prohibited by RAs, for example in Australia it is illegal to psyche a strong artificial opening and if you do, you will get an A- and your opponents will get the better of A+ or the table result.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-October-11, 19:00, said:

in Australia it is illegal to psyche a strong artificial opening

In the UK it is illegal in level 3 events to psyche a Multi as well. Both of these are covered by "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." In effect the RA is saying you may agree to play a Multi if you do not psyche it. They can say that you can agree to use a Watson double but you cannot then use it if you have psyched. What they cannot say is if you have no implicit agreement to use a Watson double, then you are not allowed to double and hope partner works it out. The Laws do not say that the Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to disallow any bid. Indeed 40A3 says the opposite. And the motive in making the double is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether there was an agreement, and I do not agree that an implicit agreement is the same as general bridge knowledge. It is derived from partnership experience. But we are going round in circles, and I shall not reply to this thread again. You have your view; I have mine. We should agree to differ.

[barmar]

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

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

The problem seems to be that there's a circularity. The Laws supposedly restrict the RA to regulating a subset of partnership understandings (those that are "special"). But the RA apparently gets to decide what's in this subset. So they can decide for themselves what their limits are. What's the point of setting a limit like this?

It's like a highway sign saying "Speed limit: whatever you think is safe".

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-October-11, 16:14, said:

I think there would be quite a strong argument that passing stayman after psyching a 1NT overcall with a weak hand with long clubs is an illegal use of the stayman convention in the EBU. It's similar to opening a GF 2♣ with a weak two in ♦ hand and then passing partner's expected waiting bid of 2♦ - not allowed in jurisdictions where psychic controls are illegal.

Passing Stayman after psyching a 1NT overcall is perfectly legal, and I can think of no reason otherwise.

Passing a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening is also legal even where psychic controls are illegal. 2♦ is a negative [or a waiting bid, or whatever] and not a psychic control.

The fact that certain bids of people's system - all peoples' systems - make certain psyches safer than others does not make such parts of the system psychic controls.

[blackshoe]

What does make a call a "psychic control" then?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 08:55, said:

Passing Stayman after psyching a 1NT overcall is perfectly legal, and I can think of no reason otherwise.

Passing a 2♦ response to a 2♣ opening is also legal even where psychic controls are illegal. 2♦ is a negative [or a waiting bid, or whatever] and not a psychic control.

The fact that certain bids of people's system - all peoples' systems - make certain psyches safer than others does not make such parts of the system psychic controls.

We clearly have a different view on what constitutes a "psychic control". The EBU says that "a partnership may not use any agreement to control a psyche" (my emphasis added). Note that this regulations talks about a "partnership" not a "player". The EBU goes on to give a very specific example of a Watson double which an entirely legal convention to have in your set of agreements (implicit or otherwise) but you are absolutely prohibited from using it to control a psyche. Psyching a 1NT overcall against 1♦ on a weak hand with long ♣ and no four card major makes it quite likely that partner will bid 2♣ so the availability of the stayman convention greatly reduces the risk of something adverse happening and provides systemic protection for the psyche. This is precisely the sort of prohibited use of a convention as a psychic control that OB 6 A 3 is directed at.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-12, 09:07, said:

What does make a call a "psychic control" then?

There's one obvious difference: doubling 3NT involves the psycher making a conventional call; passing Stayman does not.

[mrdct]

gnasher, on 2011-October-12, 17:14, said:

There's one obvious difference: doubling 3NT involves the psycher making a conventional call; passing Stayman does not.

This is true, but the EBU regulation talks about the "partnership" using an agreement to control a psyche not the "psycher".

[RMB1]

For stayman to be a psychic control it would have to be mandatory or used on unsuitable hands (for instance, bidding 2♣ on a balanced raise to 3NT with no 4 card major).

[semeai]

gnasher, on 2011-October-12, 17:14, said:

There's one obvious difference: doubling 3NT involves the psycher making a conventional call; passing Stayman does not.

No mention is made of the call being conventional, merely an agreement. (You don't need an agreement on passing Stayman in the auction 1N-P-2C-P;P though, which is why I suggested 1N-P-2C-X;P as the auction in my post above, since you would have an agreement there. It doesn't completely expose the psychic bid, but neither does a double of 3NT on any old auction.)

But all right, how about 2H X P P; XX? An SOS redouble is an agreement and it's conventional. Is it allowed if we've psyched? You wouldn't do this on the OP hand, but maybe some two-suited or suicidal three-suited psychic bid would like to redouble here.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-October-12, 17:26, said:

This is true, but the EBU regulation talks about the "partnership" using an agreement to control a psyche not the "psycher".

This would require the psycher's partner to be aware of what the psycher is doing. If he's aware, they have a CPU. If he's not aware, apparently the EBU asserts what the psycher has done — a unilateral action, nothing to do with partnership — is illegal anyway.

[bluejak]

A psychic control is a call that is designed to find out whether partner is psychic.

In the original Kaplan-Sheinwold, 1♥ P 2♠ was forcing even on a psychic opener. The purpose was to give responder a shot at finding the correct contract even opposite a psyche.

When you respond 2♦ to 2♣ to deny an ace and a king or whatever it denies in your system, the purpose is to tell partner that you do not have an ace and a king and to provide him with sufficient room to describe a very large hand. It is not to allow you to get out with a psychic even though it does have that effect. It is a negative, not a psychic control.

All systems have some agreements that make some psyches safer than others. That does not make them psychic controls. Let us try another example.

Suppose I decide to play 2/1 game forcing. If partner has primary support for my major he will bid Jacoby or Bergen or a constructive raise. A 3NT response does not exist.

If I psyche a 1♥ or 1♠ opening I am considerably less likely to be raised to the skies than by a partner playing old-fashioned Acol. Does that mean that Jacoby and 2/1 game forcing are psychic controls? Of course not.