[gnasher]

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.

On this occasion that may be equivalent to describing what's in your hand, but that's fine. That often happens when you correct partner's explanation.

In fact, as responder I would simplify the situation by saying "He's right that systemically it's Drury, but I forgot too." That provides the opponents with the same information but is easier to understand.

[Zelandakh]

When we get around to changing the UI Law that lamford loves so much, the one where we choose LAs according to what we thought our agreements were at the time before we got UI rather than what we now realise they are, perhaps we could also add a clause such that you correct at the end of the auction in the same manner. That would seem to protect the NOS here to a large extent. On the other hand, it also opens up an ethical can of worms for being able to claim psyche rather than misbid. Nonetheless, it would be a practical solution that would avoid many cases of non-offenders feeling aggrieved.

[Vampyr]

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.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-11, 02:37, said:

the 2♣ response was considered a very nearly risk-free psyche when holding a weak hand with long diamonds.

Seems hard to me to consider any psyche being worthwhile however risk free or otherwise it might be when both opponents have already indicated a willingness to pass. It also sounds like this issue could only apply to what I think was the original form of Drury where a 2♦ response indicated a weak opener, rather than the much more widely played reverse Drury where a weak opener rebids 2M.

[Zelandakh]

WellSpyder, on 2013-April-11, 03:06, said:

Seems hard to me to consider any psyche being worthwhile however risk free or otherwise it might be when both opponents have already indicated a willingness to pass. It also sounds like this issue could only apply to what I think was the original form of Drury where a 2♦ response indicated a weak opener, rather than the much more widely played reverse Drury where a weak opener rebids 2M.

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.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-11, 03:21, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-11, 03:21, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2013-April-11, 02:22, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-10, 21:54, said:

Yes.

We disagree. So be it.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2013-April-11, 01:17, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2013-April-11, 02:22, said:

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]

barmar, on 2013-April-11, 06:12, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2013-April-11, 07:21, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-11, 07:27, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-11, 07:27, said:

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, on 2013-April-11, 07:35, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-11, 06:16, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2013-April-11, 07:21, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-11, 07:27, said:

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]

WellSpyder, on 2013-April-11, 07:41, said:

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]

VixTD, on 2013-April-11, 07:40, said:

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.