[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-11, 10:05, said:

Really? Here is part of Chris Ryall's write-up of NT ranges as an example (bolded as per original, not for effect):

Completely irrelevant. Whether a natural 1NT is a convention for the purpose of Law 40A1b is the only relevant issue. One would have thought the Law book would see fit to define a convention, but it does not see fit to say that bids need to be sufficient so there is no surprise there.

[mycroft]

I'm not going to look it up right now (I'm sure it's in my history here or BLML or somewhere), but I asked Grattan Endicott (then Secretary of the WBFLC) explicitly if the "standard Moravian, no 'psychs' (whether straight up, or to actually play your system)" was legal and the intent of the (1998) Law. He said, effectively (it was in Grattanese, of course) "yes, the intent is that Regulating Authorities have absolute authority to decide what they want to regulate in the auction, as they're the best knowledgeable of their players' wishes."

And that was before the conversion from convention to SPU. Good luck, SB.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2016-March-11, 10:19, said:

I'm not going to look it up right now (I'm sure it's in my history here or BLML or somewhere), but I asked Grattan Endicott (then Secretary of the WBFLC) explicitly if the "standard Moravian, no 'psychs' (whether straight up, or to actually play your system)" was legal and the intent of the (1998) Law. He said, effectively (it was in Grattanese, of course) "yes, the intent is that Regulating Authorities have absolute authority to decide what they want to regulate in the auction, as they're the best knowledgeable of their players' wishes."

And that was before the conversion from convention to SPU. Good luck, SB.

That might have been the case at one time, but now the Laws go to the trouble of only allowing RAs to regulate special partnership understandings. There was a sign that games were played in accordance with ACBL rules. The ACBL has not designated a strong NT as a special partnership understanding, nor restricted its use (other than singletons, ranges, methods after it) etc. The SB would not have entered the event if he had been told otherwise.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-March-11, 10:15, said:

Completely irrelevant. Whether a natural 1NT is a convention for the purpose of Law 40A1b is the only relevant issue. One would have thought the Law book would see fit to define a convention, but the it does not see fit to say that bids need to be sufficient so there is no surprise there.

But whether something is to be evaluated as a convention is essentially in the hands of the RA, hence the lack of a definition. And CR provides one form of logic that would designate it as such. Another route into the SPU umbrealla would be that a sufficient number of the player base plays a different range making it "not readily understood and anticipated" or because the tournament is being played with a base of "Standard Lithuanian" and this is to be the expected meaning for the purposes of the tournament. If you remember back to the 90s when (iirc) the change was made, it was precisely this sort of possibility that raised a great deal of debate in RGB and other forums. As an example, the EBU does (or at least did) deem any agreement subject to a regulation as a SPU. Since every 1NT opening is subject to a regulation in England, that would mean that it is well within a RA's power to do this whether you like it or not.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-March-11, 09:31, said:

I do not think a natural 1NT opening bid or overcall can be described as a convention within the normal meaning of the word. Although I do notice that "convention" is missing from the definitions. Maybe the lawmakers decided that its meaning would be readily understood by a significant number of people reading the Laws ...

In addition the RA would need to have a rule that no convention can be psyched. I think there is a rule about strong artificial calls, but that does not extend to all conventions.

In a reply to Mycroft, you said "the RA has to designate these as 'special partnership understandings…" Since your quote of what Mycroft said ended with a list of conventions (negative and takeout doubles, two level transfers, Blackwood, Gerber, Stayman) I inferred that "these" in your reply to him referred to the conventions in that list. Hence, I consider your reference here to 1NT openings or overcalls as a red herring.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-11, 10:40, said:

In a reply to Mycroft, you said "the RA has to designate these as 'special partnership understandings…" Since your quote of what Mycroft said ended with a list of conventions (negative and takeout doubles, two level transfers, Blackwood, Gerber, Stayman) I inferred that "these" in your reply to him referred to the conventions in that list. Hence, I consider your reference here to 1NT openings or overcalls as a red herring.

It is equally irrelevant (to this thread anyway) what Mycroft wrote about negative doubles etc. For a partnership understanding which is not a convention, which in my opinion a natural 1NT is, to be designated a special partnership understanding, the opinion of the RA has to be that its meaning would not be understood by a significant number of people in the tournament. My "these" referred to "partnership understandings" not to conventions.

It was Mycroft who introduced the red herring by listing a number of conventions which could be regulated, which had about as much relevance to this thread as if he had quoted a LOOT rule. The ONLY test for this thread is whether the RA is allowed to prevent the psyching of a natural opening bid or overcall, under the laws as they stand. If all bids and calls can be interpreted as conventions, then there is no need for two or three words and the Laws should not bother with this special partnership understanding nonsense. I think that a convention is very similar to an artificial call. But it would have been much better if the Laws had defined what it is.

Basically the laws do say, and should say, that you cannot prevent the pysche of natural bids, although you could, for example, disallow a 6-8 1NT opening bid, so it could be argued that the no-trump range is a convention. The interesting question is whether an opening 1NT which conveys no information at all other than a desire to play in 1NT is a convention!

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-11, 10:31, said:

But whether something is to be evaluated as a convention is essentially in the hands of the RA, hence the lack of a definition. And CR provides one form of logic that would designate it as such. Another route into the SPU umbrealla would be that a sufficient number of the player base plays a different range making it "not readily understood and anticipated" or because the tournament is being played with a base of "Standard Lithuanian" and this is to be the expected meaning for the purposes of the tournament. If you remember back to the 90s when (iirc) the change was made, it was precisely this sort of possibility that raised a great deal of debate in RGB and other forums. As an example, the EBU does (or at least did) deem any agreement subject to a regulation as a SPU. Since every 1NT opening is subject to a regulation in England, that would mean that it is well within a RA's power to do this whether you like it or not.

Then why do the Laws not say that all calls or bids can be designated "special partnership understandings" if the RA can designate all of them conventions? Are you saying that a call which would be understood completely by every person who has ever played at Ten Sleep, Wyoming, a natural 1NT overcall, can be designated as a convention at the whim of the RA, in direct contradiction to the stated aims of 40A1? No doubt the intent of 40A2 is to allow the RA to ban or restrict any convention it does not like, such as the multi. When a call cannot be psyched, the RA should clearly state so. The EBU has a rule that you cannot use a Watson double of (say) 3NT (telling partner not to lead your suit) if you have psyched. This is fine because the double telling partner not to lead your suit is clearly a convention, and the inference that you may have psyched will not be readily understood.

And here SB had every right to believe that the game was played in accordance with the ACBL Laws.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, the ACBL delegates (with certain - minimal - restrictions, like "nothing not legal on the SuperChart can be allowed by a club" - not that that's ever stopped any club that wanted to do it (<cough>University</cough>), and "games that are open and are relevant across more than that club must be at least GCC") their responsibility as RA to the clubs for similar reasons to the WBFLC - that the club is the best arbiter of what their players want. Said delegation is allowed by Law 80A3. If the *club* designates everything as an SPU that you can use only if you don't psych it, well, then.

As per "why did the lawmakers go with SPU if we can designate anything a convention?" it's because a complete, unambiguous definition of convention is nigh impossible, and wouldn't be read if it was done. Everybody who's tried knows that, and so they just punted it. I like the punt - even if I am concerned as to what happens if the C&C Committee decide to update the GCC based on their new-found powers.

[barmar]

IIRC, the 1997 Laws did have a definition of "convention", and RAs were only allowed to regulate these. The 2007 revision removed this, practically allowing RAs to regulate whatever bidding agreements they want, because they're also given the responsibility to decide what constitutes a SPU. The second sentence of 40B1a is a guideline for how they should do so, but in the end it's still the RA's judgement.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-March-11, 12:19, said:

IIRC, the 1997 Laws did have a definition of "convention", and RAs were only allowed to regulate these. The 2007 revision removed this, practically allowing RAs to regulate whatever bidding agreements they want, because they're also given the responsibility to decide what constitutes a SPU. The second sentence of 40B1a is a guideline for how they should do so, but in the end it's still the RA's judgement.

No. They need to have the opinion that a significant number of players would not understand it. Of course they can lie, but even clauses like "at their absolute discretion" in UK contract law do not protect firms that do not act reasonably. And AC's are empowered to decide that they did not have the opinion that a strong NT overcall would not be understood.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2016-March-11, 11:58, said:

Oddly enough, the ACBL delegates (with certain - minimal - restrictions, like "nothing not legal on the SuperChart can be allowed by a club" - not that that's ever stopped any club that wanted to do it (<cough>University</cough>), and "games that are open and are relevant across more than that club must be at least GCC") their responsibility as RA to the clubs for similar reasons to the WBFLC - that the club is the best arbiter of what their players want. Said delegation is allowed by Law 80A3. If the *club* designates everything as an SPU that you can use only if you don't psych it, well, then.

As per "why did the lawmakers go with SPU if we can designate anything a convention?" it's because a complete, unambiguous definition of convention is nigh impossible, and wouldn't be read if it was done. Everybody who's tried knows that, and so they just punted it. I like the punt - even if I am concerned as to what happens if the C&C Committee decide to update the GCC based on their new-found powers.

Thanks for that. I find that a convention is defined by the ACBL General Convention Chart:
6. A convention is a bid or call that, by agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of Pass, Double and Redouble, the last denomination named.

So a natural 1NT opening bid and overcall is not a convention. But then you knew that already. Mr Ryall (and Mr Trump) might be the only people who thought otherwise.

In addition the club is allowed to regulate conventions in any way they choose, but nothing gives the RA power to designate as SPUs non-conventions that in their opinion are easily understood.

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2016-March-11, 12:35, said:

In addition the club is allowed to regulate conventions in any way they choose, but nothing gives the RA power to designate as SPUs non-conventions that in their opinion are easily understood.

And I am telling you that the opinion of the WBFLC is that RAs are allowed and expected to do exactly that, for anything they think are not easily understood. Regulating "Psyching a 1NT opener", if they believe that is not easily understood by their customers, is Just Fine by them.

As I said, I dislike "no psychs allowed" clubs. I think they degenerate into "no judgement allowed (unless you're a regular)" clubs. I disagree with the strong form of the Endicott Fudge (except in "one card" games, where we're kind of stuck with having to have something about that strong). I'm a regular at the NABC midnights, where it is *expected* that the players are playing something not, technically, legal (but not, one *hopes*, playing under the influence of something not, technically, legal). But there's the world as it works, and then there's the world as we'd like it to work.

Oh, and I disagree with the general form of the Endicott Fudge, because I believe that if you want to regulate natural bidding, you should do it now that you're allowed to, and not Fudge it away. But I don't write the rules, and my opinions don't actually matter.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2016-March-11, 13:44, said:

And I am telling you that the opinion of the WBFLC is that RAs are allowed and expected to do exactly that, for anything they think are not easily understood. Regulating "Psyching a 1NT opener", if they believe that is not easily understood by their customers, is Just Fine by them.

As I said, I dislike "no psychs allowed" clubs. I think they degenerate into "no judgement allowed (unless you're a regular)" clubs. I disagree with the strong form of the Endicott Fudge (except in "one card" games, where we're kind of stuck with having to have something about that strong). I'm a regular at the NABC midnights, where it is *expected* that the players are playing something not, technically, legal (but not, one *hopes*, playing under the influence of something not, technically, legal). But there's the world as it works, and then there's the world as we'd like it to work.

Oh, and I disagree with the general form of the Endicott Fudge, because I believe that if you want to regulate natural bidding, you should do it now that you're allowed to, and not Fudge it away. But I don't write the rules, and my opinions don't actually matter.

The requirement is for the 1NT opening or overcall not to be readily understood, not the psyching of it. You (or the WBFLC) are putting the cart before the horse. The 1NT opening or overcall is clearly not a convention. It is trivially understood by everyone in the event. Therefore it is not a special understanding, and the RA is acting ultra vires in designating it as such. Of course clubs ignore this and say "so what". The answer is for players to appeal and for ACs to apply the laws. Certainly if I was on the AC in this case, I would reverse the decision of the TD and restore the original table result. The opinion of a somewhat eccentric former WBFLC Secretary, who screwed up a revoke ruling in Poznan, is largely irrelevant. What is actually written in the Laws must be applied. By all means give the RA power to ban psyches. In which case players have the option not to play in these jurisdictions. But do not misapply the very clear Laws in order to keep nonagenarians happy.

And there is clearly a market for a club that bans psyches. They would be more than frowned upon at the very successful Andrew Robson Bridge Club in London. However, that club does not affiliate to the EBU and does not issue masterpoints so that they can do what they like. They can ban weak twos if they want (although they don't). I think that they are doing exactly the right thing for their target market, and they do not deceive the clientele. And I am off to Reno tomorrow, and will have nothing much more to add to the above. We will have to agree to differ.

[blackshoe]

I fail to see the usefulness of your rather derogatory reference to a "former WBFLC Secretary".

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-March-11, 21:58, said:

The 1NT opening or overcall is clearly not a convention. It is trivially understood by everyone in the event.

The overcall perhaps. But if the opening was trivially understood by all there would be no need for announcements.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-12, 02:02, said:

The overcall perhaps. But if the opening was trivially understood by all there would be no need for announcements.

Coupled with the announcement, the opening bid is trivially understood. The announcement shows the point range, as you know.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-12, 00:28, said:

I fail to see the usefulness of your rather derogatory reference to a "former WBFLC Secretary".

Because Mycroft stated the view of the said gentleman as to the intent of the WBFLC. The said gentleman was the laws consultant to an eminent AC in the EC in Poznan, dealing with a second revoke in the same suit, and he failed to correctly convey the intent of the WBFLC from the Beijing minutes. Therefore the said gentleman's opinion on the intent of the WBFLC is worse than useless. In addition some of the quaint and antiquated wording in the Laws can be laid at his door.

[Siegmund]

At risk of being deemed off-topic, let me put in a plug for the real-life town of Tensleep, a lovely and remote place, if slightly too hot and dusty for me in the summer.

Ironically, Casper (among the nearest real-life clubs to Tensleep) is something of a hotbed of system experimentation. I played in their tiny sectional a few years back, and met not just Precisionists but also a homegrown variation of Montreal Relay (none of the practitioners of which could explain coherently, but sitting back and letting them garble their own system scored very well.)

As for lamford's story, I have a lot of respect for SB's bravery. (But I don't share SB's optimism for getting a response from the unit or from headquarters about a club not following the ACBL's rules.)

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-March-12, 18:35, said:

Because Mycroft stated the view of the said gentleman as to the intent of the WBFLC. The said gentleman was the laws consultant to an eminent AC in the EC in Poznan, dealing with a second revoke in the same suit, and he failed to correctly convey the intent of the WBFLC from the Beijing minutes. Therefore the said gentleman's opinion on the intent of the WBFLC is worse than useless. In addition some of the quaint and antiquated wording in the Laws can be laid at his door.

Your logic is not valid.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-March-12, 18:29, said:

Coupled with the announcement, the opening bid is trivially understood. The announcement shows the point range, as you know.

Coupled with an announcement, a Jacoby transfer is trivially understood. That does not make it any the less a convention. An announcement has the status of an alert.