Elementary, Watson

[lamford]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I am a simple soul.

LOL

[campboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

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]

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.