Elementary, Watson

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj764ht9d876cj8&w=sa3haq75dkj93ca53&n=st92hj63da42ck762&e=s85hk842dqt5cqt94&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp2h(weak%205-9%206%20cards)2np3nXppp]399|300[/hv]

There was an interesting ruling at a local club in London on this hand. South opened a psychic 2♥ and the opposition were soon in 3NT and South tried a speculative double. North was rather confused by this, and there was certainly no agreement to play a Watson double of 3NT to ask partner not to lead one's suit, but as a matter of bridge common sense North decided to lead the ten of spades, and declarer drifted two off. West, whose tufts of hair above his ears reminded one of the secretary bird, quoted part of OB6A3: "<snip> 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." However, South was ready for him, quoting back 40A3, again verbatim: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding." "The EBU regulation can only apply if we have a partnership understanding on this double - indeed my partner is a visitor from Wales and I have never played with him before. The EBU cannot prevent one from doubling here."

 

How do you rule?

[semeai]

I don't understand the regulation.

 

If we have any old auction in which I make a psychic bid, and then I double 3NT asking partner not to lead my suit, this need not expose the psychic bid. I may not have psyched but have a hand that does not want that lead. Thus it does not "control" the psychic bid in that it does not guarantee the bid was psychic. I'm simply making the most logical call with my hand. Am I generally not allowed to act in my best interest after making a psychic bid?

 

For example, if I bid 1NT with long clubs and a weak hand, and then the auction goes 1NT-P-2C-X am I now not allowed to pass if my agreement for pass here is "suggests playing 2C doubled" or "shows length in clubs"? I'll note OB6A3 only mentions that I may not use an "agreement" to control a psyche, with no mention of natural/artificial/conventional.

 

This isn't simply meant as an indictment of the law. I would like to understand what is required of one who has made a psychic bid.

[mrdct]

I would suggest that north-south, even as a pick-up partnership, have an implicit agreement that if you open a weak two and the opponents freely bid to 3NT and you double it, you are revealing an earlier psyche and this becomes a psychic control prohibited in the EBU. As North-South have employed an illegal method and East-West obtained an inferior results as a consequence, I would award an average plus to East-West and average minus to North-South (ref: OB 10 A 10). I would also report the hand to the recorder as a fielded psyche of the Red variety.

[wyman]

I would suggest that north-south, even as a pick-up partnership, have an implicit agreement that if you open a weak two and the opponents freely bid to 3NT and you double it, you are revealing an earlier psyche and this becomes a psychic control prohibited in the EBU. As North-South have employed an illegal method and East-West obtained an inferior results as a consequence, I would award an average plus to East-West and average minus to North-South (ref: OB 10 A 10). I would also report the hand to the recorder as a fielded psyche of the Red variety.

 

this makes my head hurt

 

They've clearly not discussed this situation; there is no agreement. Period. South took a gambling action. North took a gambling action. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I don't see the problem.

 

And I hate -- probably much more than the next guy -- getting jobbed by opponents who don't disclose their agreements or who have been playing together forever and know every mannerism of the other and "guess" correctly several times a session.

[lamford]

I would suggest that north-south, even as a pick-up partnership, have an implicit agreement that if you open a weak two and the opponents freely bid to 3NT and you double it, you are revealing an earlier psyche and this becomes a psychic control prohibited in the EBU.

Presumably if it is information that would be available to a pick-up partner, it is also available to the opponents and therefore is not "undisclosed". Therefore 40A3 overrides the EBU regulation.

[mrdct]

Presumably if it is information that would be available to a pick-up partner, it is also available to the opponents and therefore is not "undisclosed". Therefore 40A3 overrides the EBU regulation.

There is no qualifier in OB 6 A B (or elsewhere in the OB that I can see) that a psychic control needs to be undisclosed in order to be illegal.

 

Law 40B2a gives Regulating Authorities unrestricted power "to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding". In this case North-South have employed a "special partnership understanding" which is prohibited in the EBU so A+/A- it is.

[blackshoe]

mrdct's position makes no sense to me. I rule there has been no violation of law or regulation, so the table result stands.

[mrdct]

mrdct's position makes no sense to me. I rule there has been no violation of law or regulation, so the table result stands.

Another way of looking at this is to not go beyond the first sentence of OB 6 A 3: "Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted".

 

The way I interpret this is that if I choose to psyche, but have a bid available to me to later reveal to partner that I have psyched, I'm not allowed to make that subsequent call. The fact that North-South have not specifically agreed to play "Watson doubles" is not relevant. North-South's "partnership agreements" include both what they explicitly discussed and a much larger volume of presumed understandings based on general bridge knowledge, where they come from and experience. Those presumed understandings surely include that if a hand opens a weak two, hears nothing from partner and sees his opponents freely bid to 3NT, a double can only mean "I've psyched".

 

Can anyone come up with a hand for South which is not a psyche where a double would make any rationale sense if the assumption were that partner is still going to lead a ♥?

[the hog]

Another way of looking at this is to not go beyond the first sentence of OB 6 A 3: "Systemic psyching of any kind is not permitted".

 

The way I interpret this is that if I choose to psyche, but have a bid available to me to later reveal to partner that I have psyched, I'm not allowed to make that subsequent call. The fact that North-South have not specifically agreed to play "Watson doubles" is not relevant. North-South's "partnership agreements" include both what they explicitly discussed and a much larger volume of presumed understandings based on general bridge knowledge, where they come from and experience. Those presumed understandings surely include that if a hand opens a weak two, hears nothing from partner and sees his opponents freely bid to 3NT, a double can only mean "I've psyched".

 

Can anyone come up with a hand for South which is not a psyche where a double would make any rationale sense if the assumption were that partner is still going to lead a ♥?

 

x

Txxxxx

AKQT

xx

 

I am not saying it is a good 2H opening, but still I think it fits the question you asked, Dave.

[iviehoff]

I think 40A3 basically says you are allowed to psyche. It isn't psyching if your partner understands what is going on by bridge logic. So I rule this is an offence under 6A3. Or put it another way: if you make a double you hope to be taken as a Watson double, and a pick-up partner takes it by bridge logic as a Watson double, it is a Watson double. You can't use 40A3 as an excuse for doing things you explicitly aren't allowed to do.

[lamford]

You can't use 40A3 as an excuse for doing things you explicitly aren't allowed to do.

You can't use OB6, or any other section of the Orange Book, to prevent you doing something you are explicitly allowed to do under 40A3. There is no power vested in the RA to modify this, only to control agreements.

[lamford]

The way I interpret this is that if I choose to psyche, but have a bid available to me to later reveal to partner that I have psyched, I'm not allowed to make that subsequent call.

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?

[Cyberyeti]

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?

There isn't a clause anywhere to say that you may not pass Stayman to control a psyche, there is for the Watson X.

[lamford]

There isn't a clause anywhere to say that you may not pass Stayman to control a psyche, there is for the Watson X.

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.

[campboy]

The fact that they haven't discussed this double does not prevent there being an implicit agreement.

[blackshoe]

The fact that they haven't discussed this double does not prevent there being an implicit agreement.

 

From the OP: "indeed my partner is a visitor from Wales and I have never played with him before".

 

They haven't discussed it, they've never played together before, and yet they have an implicit agreement. How does that work?

[campboy]

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.

[iviehoff]

You can't use OB6, or any other section of the Orange Book, to prevent you doing something you are explicitly allowed to do under 40A3. There is no power vested in the RA to modify this, only to control agreements.

You are essentially saying that the EBU has no legal basis to promulgate OB6A3. It is a questionable area, to be sure, but while it exists I think we apply it at the table and complain about it elsewhere.

[lamford]

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.

I would agree that the meaning can be deduced without discussion. However the RA is only empowered to regulate "special partnership understandings". Under 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. Therefore the RA is not empowered to regulate understandings that would be readily understood by everyone. They are not allowed to outlaw a double which you admit would be reliably deduced without discussion as this is not a "special partnership understanding". Now whether the ban on agreeing to play the Watson double after you have psyched is legal ...

[campboy]

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

[hotShot]

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]

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]

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]

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.