[bluejak]

Good. I would be happy to be proved wrong because I do not like the position. But I do need to know why my logic is wrong.

[WellSpyder]

 bluejak, on 2011-January-12, 08:09, said:

Good. I would be happy to be proved wrong because I do not like the position. But I do need to know why my logic is wrong.

I thought Cascade provided the necessary logic:

 Cascade, on 2011-January-11, 04:43, said:

Psyching is not a partnership understanding therefore it cannot be a special partnership understanding.

[RMB1]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-January-12, 08:24, said:

I thought Cascade provided the necessary logic:

Quote

Psyching is not a partnership understanding therefore it cannot be a special partnership understanding.

But psyching is not partnership agreement yet authorities forbad psyching of artificial opening bids which are only artificial through partnership agreement.

The old laws allowed regulation of conventions and the WBFLC said that it was it would not challenge regulations that prohibited psyching of conventions.

The new laws allowed regulation of special partnership understanding, so it difficult to see how the law makers could object to regulations that prohibited psyching of calls that were the subject of special partnership understandings.

[WellSpyder]

 RMB1, on 2011-January-12, 09:18, said:

The new laws allowed regulation of special partnership understanding, so it difficult to see how the law makers could object to regulations that prohibited psyching of calls that were the subject of special partnership understandings.

Agreed. But I thought Bluejak was arguing one step further that natural opening bids could be argued to be the subject of special partnership understandings if they were occasionally psyched. So it followed that the pysching of all bids could be regulated.

My interpretation is that this is only possible if the opening bid is the subject of SPUs other than the possibility of psyching since by definition that in itself cannot be an SPU.

[RMB1]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-January-12, 09:39, said:

Agreed. But I thought Bluejak was arguing one step further that natural opening bids could be argued to be the subject of special partnership understandings if they were occasionally psyched. So it followed that the pysching of all bids could be regulated.

I think Bluejak is arguing that a regulatory authority can designate natural bids as special partnership understandings (regardless of whether they are psyched) and then regulate them, and so prohibit the psyching of them.

It does not take much for a regulatory authority to (legitimately) label a partnership understanding as "special":

• an agreement to open on less than traditional values;
  
• an agreement to not always open the longest suit;
  
• opening the higher of two 5 card suits, but the lower of 4 card suits.

The laws put no real constraints on what may be designated a special partnership understanding.

[Cascade]

 RMB1, on 2011-January-12, 11:01, said:

The laws put no real constraints on what may be designated a special partnership understanding.

That is not true.

"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."

It would be very disappointing if a RA attempted to designate normal natural opening bids using this criteria.

[RMB1]

 Cascade, on 2011-January-12, 13:35, said:

It would be very disappointing if a RA attempted to designate normal natural opening bids using this criteria.

I wish I shared your optimism. Given the efforts that went in to indirectly restricting natural bids (weak twos, wide-range 1NT) by prohibiting conventional/artificial continuations under the old laws; I would not find it all surprising if an RA designated natural opening bids as special partnership understandings in order to control them.

[Cascade]

 RMB1, on 2011-January-12, 16:09, said:

I wish I shared your optimism. Given the efforts that went in to indirectly restricting natural bids (weak twos, wide-range 1NT) by prohibiting conventional/artificial continuations under the old laws; I would not find it all surprising if an RA designated natural opening bids as special partnership understandings in order to control them.

I am not optimistic.

I am and have been frequently disappointed by RA regulations that do not comply with the laws and with the distortions of the laws that are made to justify those regulations.

Nevertheless the law is clear that RA do not have carte blanche to determine that any bid is a special partnership understanding.

[barmar]

It's not feasible to list all SPUs, because anything that isn't "standard" is an SPU. So the RA basically has to list all the things that it considers normal, natural, etc. That's not regulating natural bidding, it's just defining what it is.

[gnasher]

 RMB1, on 2011-January-12, 16:09, said:

I wish I shared your optimism. Given the efforts that went in to indirectly restricting natural bids (weak twos, wide-range 1NT) by prohibiting conventional/artificial continuations under the old laws; I would not find it all surprising if an RA designated natural opening bids as special partnership understandings in order to control them.

Your pessimism is well founded: the EBU designates natural opening bids as special partnership understandings.

[mycroft]

It's not "psyching is not a partnership understanding, therefore can not be an SPU", it's "if it's an SPU, we can regulate it; explicitly we can regulate it by saying that you can only play it *if you agree never to psych it*; therefore, if you're not playing SubStandard Armenian according to The Book, you can't psych - because your calls, the entire system, are fundamentally unfamiliar to 'the tournament community' (that plays S-SA)."

When I saw that the Endicott Fudge (you can't regulate natural bids, but you can ban conventions after them) was rendered unnecessary by the switch from "conventional" to "special partnership understanding", I said "well, now they *can* legitimately run 'one card' events", without resorting to "you can do that, but you can't play Blackwood or SOS XX, or anything else afterward" games. Of course the Fudge remains allowed, and used, for that matter.

I'm waiting for the GCC overhaul that will remove the infamous DISALLOWED, 7 (bad clausing and all), and replace it with what they tried to do years ago but was told was illegal - "1NT openers can be 1) balanced with a minimum of 10 HCP; 2) Artificial, forcing one round" and "Natural weak 2s must contain at least 5 cards in the suit, be within a 7 HCP range, and may not promise another suit (known or unknown) of 4 cards or longer". I'm quite certain that was the intent of changing to SPU - to regulate "non-standard" or "non-desired" natural calls. I'm sure other things will be tweaked as well...

[Cascade]

 gnasher, on 2011-January-12, 16:56, said:

Your pessimism is well founded: the EBU designates natural opening bids as special partnership understandings.

Do they do this on the basis that they are not readily understood by English bridge players or that they are not anticipated bye them?

The do not have the power to simply designate them as "special partnership understandings" by fiat.

[blackshoe]

"power" ≠ "legal authority"

I once had a club level TD tell me "I can make any ruling I want!" I replied "Yes, you can, but that won't make your ruling legal."

[gnasher]

 Cascade, on 2011-January-12, 17:45, said:

Do they do this on the basis that they are not readily understood by English bridge players or that they are not anticipated bye them?

The do not have the power to simply designate them as "special partnership understandings" by fiat.

They don't give a reason, so far as I can see:

"7D1 ( c) Law 40B1 refers to special partnership agreements. Any agreement that is
subject to a regulation in this Orange book is deemed to be a special partnership
agreement."

"10 E 1 From 1st August 2008 all agreements may be regulated under Law 40 as 'special
partnership understandings'. The EBU defines all agreements that it regulates as
'special partnership understandings'. The previous indirect method of regulating certain
opening bids and overcalls no longer applies."

"11 C 1 The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is ..."

[gnasher]

My earlier quotes were from the EBU Orange Book, which contains regulations intended for players. There is also the EBU White Book, which is intended mainly for TDs. This claims to quote a WBF Laws Committee minute from 2001:

EBU White Book 2010 (claiming to quote WBFLC) said:

A Regulating Authority has unrestricted powers to regulate understandings under this Law.

However, the WBF minute actually reads

WBFLC said:

a regulating authority has unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under Law 40D

Law 40D ("The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions") appeared in the 1997 Laws, but not in the 2007 Laws.

Hmm.


Edit: The previous version of the White Book (dated 2006) contained something closer to the original:

EBU White Book 2006 (claiming to quote WBFLC) said:

A regulating authority has unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under this Law.

Hmm again.

[Cascade]

 gnasher, on 2011-January-12, 18:28, said:

They don't give a reason, so far as I can see:

"7D1 ( c) Law 40B1 refers to special partnership agreements. Any agreement that is
subject to a regulation in this Orange book is deemed to be a special partnership
agreement."

"10 E 1 From 1st August 2008 all agreements may be regulated under Law 40 as 'special
partnership understandings'. The EBU defines all agreements that it regulates as
'special partnership understandings'. The previous indirect method of regulating certain
opening bids and overcalls no longer applies."

"11 C 1 The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is ..."

Those regulations are patently contrary to the laws as such they have no affect.

[Cascade]

The law requires a designation.

I would not consider a blanket definition as a designation. Designation to me suggests a more pointed and specific reference.

[campboy]

While the wording of OB10E is unfortunate, what it is actually using the ability to designate natural bids SPUs for is the following:

3-card majors are SPUs so we can ban them;
3-card overcalls are SPUs so we can ban them;
overcalls to show high cards rather than length are SPUs so we can ban them;
very light openings are SPUs so we can ban them.

I don't think any of these applications are actually controversial.

[gnasher]

 campboy, on 2011-January-13, 06:22, said:

While the wording of OB10E is unfortunate, what it is actually using the ability to designate natural bids SPUs for is the following:

3-card majors are SPUs so we can ban them;
3-card overcalls are SPUs so we can ban them;
overcalls to show high cards rather than length are SPUs so we can ban them;
very light openings are SPUs so we can ban them.

I don't think any of these applications are actually controversial.

True, but it's very odd that the EBU should claim authority it doesn't have, and support the claim by misquoting an irrelevant statement from the WBLC.

[bluejak]

I think your wording is a little too precise. What I think you are saying, slightly edited, is

True, but I think that it's very odd that the EBU should claim authority some of us believe it doesn't have but the EBU believes it does have, and support the claim by citing an authority but not quoting a statement. misquoting an irrelevant statement from the WBFLC.

Put it that way, it is no more odd than that if we were both given a bidding problem, we might give two different answers.