[mycroft]

 ArtK78, on 2013-May-31, 08:12, said:

There are two issues involved here. One: Is there a concealed partnership agreement? and Two: Is there a psyche?

As I mentioned in the other thread, Three: is this an *illegal* partnership agreement, concealed or otherwise?

Quote

We can dispose of the second one quickly. Given that the classic definition of a psyche is a deliberate and gross misrepresentation of values and/or distribution, opening Flannery 10-14 HCP on a 5-5 9 HCP hand is not a psyche. It is one HCP off and one card off. Hardly a gross misrepresentation.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but I think you're using the "definition" that one point and/or one card do not a psychic make (a well-publicised guideline, but still, only a guideline) rather than the definition of a psychic.

Flannery is weird: as hrothgar said between us, it's a specific call designed to solve a specific hole, and 5=5 doesn't fall into that hole. As such, claiming 4=5 and having 5=5 (which is a nice, easy 1♠, then 2♥ call) is a HUGE "one card". Nobody will play declarer (should he end up being declarer) for it, (even the people who expect 5cM, or singletons in NT, for instance) and frequently that will disadvantage the defence. Now I would see it if it were ♠8-fifth ♥AKQxx 1=2; "looks like 4=5=1=3 10-count to me". But this hand, where the extra shape is basically being used to bring the hand up to strength, no.

There are other conventional agreements like that: what about a mini-Roman on 4=4=2=3? Or, alternatively, a "could be short as 2" 1♣ opening on 4=4=4=1? It's only one card, right? Some "one cards" are different than others.

And, oddly enough, some "one points" are also different from others - a stiff K is used to get to *still* one Work Point light?

I think you argue in my favour in the very next paragraph:

Quote

The concealed partnership agreement is a much thornier issue. The partnership is announcing that its agreement is that the 2♦ opening shows 4 spades, 5 hearts and 10-14 HCP. The hand is 5-5 with 9 HCP, and a very flawed 9 HCP at that.

So after saying that it's "only one HCP", it's now "a very flawed 9" (I agree with that; heck, I'd probably be playing the stiff K as 2 rather than it's "full" 3 Work Points). I think if we just removed all the history, and guidelines, and anathemizing of certain words out of it, and just used your last two sentences, "gross distortion" would be the decision of everyone.

Basically, that one point and one card can't be "just a deviation" in one paragraph and "incorrect, and very flawed" in the next.

Coming back to the real world with its convention charts and history, deviations that, if disclosed as part of the agreement, would make that agreement illegal are looked at with much more scrutiny than deviations that would be legal if disclosed. Especially in cases where if partner doesn't expect it, it's arguably a psychic (illegal on the GCC) and if partner does expect it, it's an illegal partnership agreement, bonus for not being disclosed, we look at it with more scrutiny.

If we're going to say "this is an agreeement you are not allowed to have", then treating it as a distortion has to be gross, to inflict the dramatic punishment suggested later in your quote ("you can't play it FOREVER, for any range"), or minor (in which case the punishment is massively overboard). If it is gross, and assuming it was deliberate, it's a psychic; rather than going through the circumlocutions, just treat it as an illegal psychic (same punishment as an illegal conventional agreement, so what's the big deal?) and be done with it.

Shorter Mycroft: the P word is not a 4-letter word; it's not even (in many cases) illegal. If the shoe fits, there's no need to try to hobble together a misshapen boot into a shoe.

[ggwhiz]

 mycroft, on 2013-May-31, 13:23, said:

is this an *illegal* partnership agreement, concealed or otherwise?

I suspect that this would only come to light after and would focus on the actions of the responder. Not an illegal agreement to me until fielded but they would only have to underbid once for me to put them in jail.

If that should happen I would think the onus is on them to prove it's above board as who knows (except them) if/how often it has happened before. Let them appeal and at least be put on the strongest notice even if they win the ruling.

[mycroft]

Well, frequently judicious questioning can determine if, despite what is said, the real, expected set of hands include enough "deviations" to be illegal. "Oh, he does that occasionally, maybe once a month, but I never do, and I *never* take that possibility into account." Even if that is *true*, which I would expect is likely coloured by observer bias, it may be an illegal understanding that is taken into account when defending, in a way that declarer can not if she is not told.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2013-May-31, 09:02, said:

But as for the ban on psyching conventional openings,

Does this ban apply to Mid-Chart and Super-Chart?

[jnichols]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-01, 02:08, said:

Does this ban apply to Mid-Chart and Super-Chart?

All three chards (GCC, Mid, and Super) contain the same prohibition -"Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto."
The GCC contains a further prohibition on psyching conventional responses to natural openings

[blackshoe]

The additional ban is on psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural opening bids. It seems psyching a Jacoby 2NT response, or a 3m 'Bergen Raise', to 1M is legal. Psyching Drury is not.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-01, 08:23, said:

The additional ban is on psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural opening bids. It seems psyching a Jacoby 2NT response, or a 3m 'Bergen Raise', to 1M is legal. Psyching Drury is not.

I guess they decided those don't really need to be prohibited. A psyche that forces you several levels too high is likely to be self-punishing. E.g. you psyche a Jacoby 2NT when you only have 5 HCP -- good luck staying out of a horrible slam.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say those psychs would ever be a good idea.

[jeffford76]

 barmar, on 2013-June-01, 21:32, said:

I guess they decided those don't really need to be prohibited. A psyche that forces you several levels too high is likely to be self-punishing. E.g. you psyche a Jacoby 2NT when you only have 5 HCP -- good luck staying out of a horrible slam.

Enough people psyche controls, splinters, and exclusion with strong hands that I doubt they want to prohibit high level psyches.

[Vampyr]

Thanks all.

[barmar]

 jeffford76, on 2013-June-02, 11:35, said:

Enough people psyche controls, splinters, and exclusion with strong hands that I doubt they want to prohibit high level psyches.

Or at least they don't want to put Zia, one of our most popular players, out of commission.

[mycroft]

The other one it doesn't ban, provided you don't do it too often (or decide to make it part of your agreement, *and disclose it as required*), is a psychic "game try" 2NT over a weak 2. That one *does* come up often enough that most people have either run into it once or tried it themselves.

Of course, only once have I seen a psychic 4NT over a weak 2...Partner wasn't convinced.