[blml] Sykes and Mist Beads

[Wayne Burrows]

On 02/02/2008, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008, at 7:01 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>
> > 2007 Law 40B2(a):
> >
> >> The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction
> >> to ..... allow conditionally, any special partnership
> >> understanding .....
> >
> > Richard Hills:
> >
> > Under a literal reading of "without restriction" it seems
> > that a Regulating Authority could perpetrate this rule:
> >
> > "You may use the Ghestem convention on the condition that
> > you never claim, never misbid, and also never bid a slam."
> >
> > So I still argue that "without restriction" should be read
> > as "without restriction, unless contrary to another more
> > specific Law".
> >
> > That is, I prefer the Kojak rule-of-the-thumb, "a specific
> > Law takes priority over a more general Law" to another more
> > arbitrary policy, "if you do not like what a Law says, find
> > another Law".
>
> As would I.  But we clearly established in a thread of a couple of
> years ago that, per WBF interpretation, the power to regulate
> conventions granted by the 1997 L40D was absolute, to the point where
> a perverse RA could perpetrate something like, "You may use the
> Ghestem convention only if you are left-handed and under 50."  I
> don't see anything in the new L40 that would change this.  What the
> new L40 clearly  does is expand the RA's 1997 authority over
> "conventions" to apply to "partnership understandings" of any kind.
>

This is incorrect.  For a RA to have power it must be a "Special
Partnership Understand" not just any "Partnership Understanding".  A
"Special Partnership Understanding" requires that the RA authority
believe it "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a
significant number of players in the tournament".

I can't imagine anything that would meet these requirements.  One
example I gave earlier is an 8-10 hcp 1NT which is easily understood
and will be anticipated by everyone when they are told in advance.

How about a bid that shows:

weak (at least 0 hcp) or strong (unlimited);
one or both or neither major;
is artificial and forcing for one round.

Or another bid that shows:

0-8 hcp;
one or both or neither major;
is artificial but not forcing.

Which if either of these is not readily understood?

To me they are both easily understood and simply telling the players
that pairs may play these methods will make them anticipated.
Anticipation is simply about marketing to make players aware of the
variety of methods available.

Of course the first bid I described above is Stayman over 1NT and the
second a Fert opening bid.

I think it is going to be very hard to argue that these "Special
Partnership Understandings" are not readily understood but no doubt
RAs will try or more likely will just make regulations without
reference to the constraints in the laws essentially continuing the
status quo.  Remember my National Association communicated to me the
view that they were "*NEVER*" intended to be constrained by the old
L40D.  I am hoping to be surprised but I can't imagine RAs drastically
liberalizing their convention or partnership understanding regulations
to allow all easily understandable methods.

Wayne