Spinoff Question

[Vampyr]

My understanding of the EBU's position is that Drury was considered a psyche control (illegal) rather than a free psyche (legal until it becomes a CPU). That is, that the free psyche was the 1M opening rather than the response.

 

Oh I see. Yes, I think I remember that this is correct.

[RMB1]

My understanding of the EBU's position is that Drury was considered a psyche control (illegal) rather than a free psyche (legal until it becomes a CPU). That is, that the free psyche was the 1M opening rather than the response.

 

The paranoia about Drury disappeared from the regulations and practice many years ago.

 

There is no special treatment of Drury in the rules on permitted conventions or psyches.

[barmar]

It seems likely that the partnership understanding is "2♦ is systemically Drury, but we both have a propensity to forget it". If so, and one partner realises that this is the agreement, he should say so. That's a legal obligation.

But is "2♦ shows either 4-card limit raise (when we remember), or a constructive hand with diamonds (when we forget)" a legal agreement in the relevant jurisdictions?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

We disagree. So be it.

[blackshoe]

I have often said "Partner may be right as to our agreements, but I don't think we can provide evidence, and its not what I've got."

So? That is, legally, an extraneous comment. It is not required by law. It is not even suggested by law.

[blackshoe]

It seems likely that the partnership understanding is "2♦ is systemically Drury, but we both have a propensity to forget it". If so, and one partner realises that this is the agreement, he should say so. That's a legal obligation.

If this is the situation, then I agree. But "seems likely" isn't good enough.

[gnasher]

But is "2♦ shows either 4-card limit raise (when we remember), or a constructive hand with diamonds (when we forget)" a legal agreement in the relevant jurisdictions?

 

It would be legal in England, where Wellspyder plays. It's allowed in the ACBL Mid Chart, but not General Chart.

 

Of course, that's not relevant to the question of whether the agreement should be disclosed.

[blackshoe]

It would be legal in England, where Wellspyder plays. It's allowed in the ACBL Mid Chart, but not General Chart.

 

Of course, that's not relevant to the question of whether the agreement should be disclosed.

Perhaps not, but it does suggest that if your partnership can't remember the artificial agreement, you had best not, at least under the GCC, play it. The problem then of course is "how do you learn a new convention?"

[gnasher]

Perhaps not, but it does suggest that if your partnership can't remember the artificial agreement, you had best not, at least under the GCC, play it. The problem then of course is "how do you learn a new convention?"

By practising it on BBO before inflicting it on real opponents? In my experience the BBO robots seem not to mind if you misdescribe your system.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps not, but it does suggest that if your partnership can't remember the artificial agreement, you had best not, at least under the GCC, play it. The problem then of course is "how do you learn a new convention?"

 

By practising it on BBO before inflicting it on real opponents? In my experience the BBO robots seem not to mind if you misdescribe your system.

Well, that's certainly an option for those of us who have computers and an internet connection.

[VixTD]

So? That is, legally, an extraneous comment. It is not required by law. It is not even suggested by law.

I think that depends on how you decide what constitutes a partnership agreement.

 

A pair can write an agreement on their convention card, or discuss one and decide to play it, but what happens if what they do in practice does not bear out what they've agreed? Is it right to call it an agreement?

 

If a pair agree to play "standard Ghestem", but they get the suit combinations wrong more often than not, is it fair to say that their agreement is to play specific two-suiters rather than just random two-suiters? If a pair say their weak twos are always six-card suits, but they both show a propensity to open five-card suits fairly often, is their agreement what they say or what they do?

 

If Robin is suggesting that the "agreement" that the laws require a pair to disclose goes beyond just what is written down, but takes into account praxis, then I can't say he's wrong. Even if both players realise they've both forgotten something they should have known on the same hand, it seems right to try to protect the opponents in case of doubt.

[Vampyr]

It would be legal in England, where Wellspyder plays.

 

I am not convinced of this. You explain the convention, and it is not UI to partner, because he did forget but that is part of the agreement. Something is not right here.

[WellSpyder]

The problem then of course is "how do you learn a new convention?"

I recommend getting in wrong and then spawning a lengthy discussion on the BBO Discussion Forums. Chances are you won't forget it again.....

[Vampyr]

I recommend getting in wrong and then spawning a lengthy discussion on the BBO Discussion Forums. Chances are you won't forget it again.....

 

You might, because the second time will engender an even lengthier and more involved discussion.

 

An alternative answer to "how do you learn a new convention" is "you don't, because you are probably playing too many already".

[barmar]

I think that depends on how you decide what constitutes a partnership agreement.

We've been down this road many times before, usually in threads (or tangents) about non-regular partnerships who agree to play a convention, but have different ideas about how that convention is played, and haven't discussed the details. Do they actually have an agreement or not? This is probably a question for Plato or Descartes to answer.

[Zelandakh]

We've been down this road many times before, usually in threads (or tangents) about non-regular partnerships who agree to play a convention, but have different ideas about how that convention is played, and haven't discussed the details. Do they actually have an agreement or not? This is probably a question for Plato or Descartes to answer.

Yes, they have an agreement: "We agreed to play convention X but did not discuss follow-ups (or whatever)". Perhaps Plato could have written it better though.

[barmar]

Yes, they have an agreement: "We agreed to play convention X but did not discuss follow-ups (or whatever)". Perhaps Plato could have written it better though.

But that explanation is generally not allowed. Most jurisdictions require you to give the meaning of a call, not just state the name of a convention.

 

And as we've discussed in those other threads, what actually happens is that the explainer doesn't even realize the need to qualify his answer. They assume everyone plays the convention as they do, so they simply give the description according to their understanding.

 

And most of the time this works out. While there's occasional variation, many conventions do have a widespread concensus. So if you assume your pick-up partner plays a well-known convention (DONT, Jacoby 2NT, inverted minors) the way you do, you probably have a 90% chance of being right.

 

So does a 90% chance of being in actual agreement constitute "having an agreement"?

[gnasher]

I am not convinced of this. You explain the convention, and it is not UI to partner, because he did forget but that is part of the agreement. Something is not right here.

You explain both the convention and the propensity to forget, and all of that is UI to partner.

[Vampyr]

You explain both the convention and the propensity to forget, and all of that is UI to partner.

 

But if the agreement is "constructive in diamonds if we forget", then partner has made the correct bid according to your agreement. How can this agreement then be UI to him?

[VixTD]

We've been down this road many times before, usually in threads (or tangents) about non-regular partnerships who agree to play a convention, but have different ideas about how that convention is played, and haven't discussed the details. Do they actually have an agreement or not? This is probably a question for Plato or Descartes to answer.

Maybe so, but the director still needs some practical advice.

 

Even if there's written evidence that they play a convention both players have forgotten, the TD may rule that they don't play that convention as the evidence of their actions belies this. What I think Robin is suggesting is that the players themselves may reason: "OK, we agreed to play this several months ago, it's not come up since, I've forgotten it, partner's forgotten it, to all intents and purposes we aren't actually playing it, so we need to tell the opponents this so they aren't damaged by misinformation."

 

Ed's saying (I think) that although the TD can decide this, the players should be bound by what they agreed in theory and not by what actually happens in practice. I'm not convinced that this is right.

[gnasher]

But if the agreement is "constructive in diamonds if we forget", then partner has made the correct bid according to your agreement. How can this agreement then be UI to him?

 

I thought we were talking about a correction that the 2♦ bidder would make? That would only occur after the question of UI became irrelevant.

[bluejak]

And the downside of that is what?

 

I have often said "Partner may be right as to our agreements, but I don't think we can provide evidence, and its not what I've got."

I don't mind you saying it because you know what you are doing. But I dislike this as advice. You are suggesting people do not follow the Laws, and people who will not understand the ramifications may take it up.

 

Drury was illegal in the EBU until quite recently. I believe that this is because the 2♣ response was considered a very nearly risk-free psyche when holding a weak hand with long diamonds.

I wouldn't call twenty-plus years "quite recently".

 

By practising it on BBO before inflicting it on real opponents? In my experience the BBO robots seem not to mind if you misdescribe your system.

Oh? So people who do not play online are not allowed to play new agreements?

 

One of the problems with the game these days is the nastiness of people to their opponents who try playing something new. It is unnecessary, and people who do not know their conventions give you more good boards than bad so should be encouraged.

 

Tolerance generally will improve bridge, especially at lower levels.

[barmar]

I wouldn't call twenty-plus years "quite recently".

Time seems to fly in the bridge community. ACBL only makes significant updates to alerting regulations every 5-10 years, but players still complain that they're constantly changing and they can't keep up.

[gnasher]

Oh? So people who do not play online are not allowed to play new agreements?

 

One of the problems with the game these days is the nastiness of people to their opponents who try playing something new. It is unnecessary, and people who do not know their conventions give you more good boards than bad so should be encouraged.

 

Tolerance generally will improve bridge, especially at lower levels.

Perhaps you didn't understand the context of my comment? I was discussing what people should do if they have an agreement which they forget so often that it becomes an implicit agreement, and the implicit agreement is not allowed.

 

For example, if you agree to play a Multi 2♦ and then keep opening 2♦ with a natural weak two, it becomes an agreement which would be illegal in England or North America. What do you think a pair should do in those circumstances?

[barmar]

Gnasher's main point was that you should practice your agreements to help them sink in, if you have memory problems. "Online" was clearly just a suggestion of a convenient way to accomplish this.