flannery 10-14pts with 9 pts

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&n=sk9765hk8643dkc96&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d]133|200|alerted as flannery[/hv]

 

 

Is this legal? Partnership consistently is off by a pt or so on bids.

 

Director says 1 pt short is OK

 

 

ACBL General Convention Chart on opening bids #6 says 10pts minimun

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&n=sk9765hk8643dkc96&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d]133|200|alerted as flannery[/hv]

 

Is this legal? Partnership consistently is off by a pt or so on bids.

 

Director says 1 pt short is OK

 

I think that an isolated incident is legal, however, in a perfect world I'd want to be able to see a large corpus of hands where the partnership did / did not open a Flannery 2♦.

 

FWIW, the 5-5 shape gives me much greater pause than the 9 HCP hand (even when three of these are a stiff King)

[Vampyr]

In the EBU players whose cards are marked eg 14-16 1NT open most 13s. It is a problem.

[WellSpyder]

In the EBU players whose cards are marked eg 14-16 1NT open most 12s. It is a problem.

? My card is marked 14-16 for 1NT, and I open most 12s. I also open a significant majority of 11s. Why is this a problem?

(I don't open them 1NT, of course.....)

[chrism]

This is not quite a psych, though it doesn't feel close even to a 9-count in HCP to me, so is not covered by the general ACBL ban on psyching artificial opening bids (General Convention Chart, DISALLOWED, clause 2) or the mid-Chart prohibition on psyching conventional agreements that may shower fewer than 10 HCP (Mid-Chart, DISALLOWED, clause 7).

 

However, if the pair is frequently "off by a point" in this and other agreements, then they need to fix their CC to reflect their real agreements, or face serious disciplinary consequences for deliberately having Concealed Partnership Understandings. And if their agreements on Flannery embrace normally choosing to open the example hand with 2D, then they are playing a convention that is not legal in ACBL GCC events. Someone should have a serious word with this partnership before they get themselves into trouble.

[Zelandakh]

Mycroft dealed with this specific issue back in February as part of the worst agreement thread.

[Vampyr]

? My card is marked 14-16 for 1NT, and I open most 12s. I also open a significant majority of 11s. Why is this a problem?

(I don't open them 1NT, of course.....)

 

LOL I meant 13, corrected.

[ArtK78]

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

 

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.

 

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. This, in and of itself, is not a problem if it is a once every 100 occurances deviation. Even the fact that partner may be aware that there have been very rare past deviations is not a real problem, as partner will be expecting full values for the bid. But if there is a history of frequent deviation from the agreed upon parameters of the bid, then there is a serious problem. Now partner knows more about the opening bid than is being disclosed to the opponents. All of the usual remedies for concealed partnership agreements should be utilized to prevent this from happening again. In my opinion, aside from any other disciplinary penalties, the best remedy would be to forbid this partnership from playing the convention FOREVER. If they cannot play it properly with full disclosure, they should not be allowed to play it at all.

[Zelandakh]

You cannot deal with the psyche issue so quickly Art. If you open a 10-12 1NT with ♠AJT9/ ♥AT98/ ♦T98/ ♣T9, this is also only a small deviation but will 100% be classified as a psyche from everything I have read about the ACBL. As has been pointed out in many other threads here, the question is whether the same red line is used for other "at least 10hcp" calls.

[hrothgar]

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. This, in and of itself, is not a problem if it is a once every 100 occurances deviation.

 

For me, the real issue is the following:

 

1. The Flannery 2D opening is a tool designed to address a specific type of problem hand

2. Holding a 5-5 pattern with both majors, there's no good reason not to open 1S and rebid in Hearts

3. With this specific hand, there sure as hell isn't any kind of suit quality argument to be made

 

As I said before, I'd really like to see a large corpus of hands to determine whether the pair in question is lying about their agreements as a way to play an illegal convention. If this option isn't available to me, I'd like to understand why the decision was made to open this 2D rather than 1S.

[TylerE]

You cannot deal with the psyche issue so quickly Art. If you open a 10-12 1NT with ♠AJT9/ ♥AT98/ ♦T98/ ♣T9, this is also only a small deviation but will 100% be classified as a psyche from everything I have read about the ACBL. As has been pointed out in many other threads here, the question is whether the same red line is used for other "at least 10hcp" calls.

 

That's more of a "ACBL is Dumb/stuck in the 1950s/would ban mini-NT if they could" thing though.

[ArtK78]

You cannot deal with the psyche issue so quickly Art. If you open a 10-12 1NT with ♠AJT9/ ♥AT98/ ♦T98/ ♣T9, this is also only a small deviation but will 100% be classified as a psyche from everything I have read about the ACBL. As has been pointed out in many other threads here, the question is whether the same red line is used for other "at least 10hcp" calls.

Mini-1NT openings are a specific exception established by the ACBL. TylerE phrased it differently that I am phrasing it. Absent any specific rule to the contrary, one is forced to rely on the standard definition of what constitutes a psyche.

 

Of course, if it is considered a psyche, it is perfectly legal.

[Zelandakh]

Of course, if it is considered a psyche, it is perfectly legal.

If it were classified as a psyche then it would be illegal, since it is an artificial opening.

 

Edit: or did you mean the 1NT opening? I am fairly confident from BBF posts that the ACBL have disallowed getting round the 10 point limit by calling it a psyche.

[billw55]

I wonder what would happen if I tell ACBL that I count a ten in a suit with another honor as half a point.

[nige1]

IMO, system-restrictions should be dropped but, while we still have them, they should be enforced. Otherwise regulations confer an unfair advantage on those players who are ignorant of them or who flout them deliberately. Discussion of "psychs" is a red-herring. If the rules specify an HCP requirement and don't explicitly mention judgement, then even a one-point deviation should be penalized. Also, hands suitable for some of these bids are rare, so it is nearly impossible to establish a history of deviation. Hence "psych" should not be allowed as justification. Those are just my opinions but this topic so often causes controversy that, if rule-makers must keep their daft rules, the least they should do, is clarify them.

[barmar]

I wonder what would happen if I tell ACBL that I count a ten in a suit with another honor as half a point.

They'd probably say "too bad", because their rule is based on standard Work points. They've specifically prohibited using personal judgement to upgrade mini-NT hands.

 

If the point of this rule is that opponents should be able to judge what kind of hand you have (and thus infer what their partner may have during the defense), and they don't know about your 10=.5 style, the rule makes some sense. What's harder to understand is why they've implemented it only for mini-NT, not more generally. Probably because mini-NT is a relatively difficult opening to defend against to begin with, they don't want to allow it any additional leeway.

[ArtK78]

If it were classified as a psyche then it would be illegal, since it is an artificial opening.

Yes, I stand corrected on that point.

[helene_t]

Discussion of "psychs" is a red-herring. If the rules specify an HCP requirement and don't explicitly mention judgement, then even a one-point deviation should be penalized.

I agree that a one-point deviation is a deviation (as long as there are no plausible reasons for upgrading) for the purpose of MI rulings and for the purpose of the legality of (implicit) agreement to open 9-counts where the legal minimum is 10.

 

But as for the ban on psyching conventional openings, it is a different story. A psyche is per definition a gross deviation.

[Zelandakh]

I agree that a one-point deviation is a deviation

It would be a deviation if not for this part of the OP:-

Partnership consistently is off by a pt or so on bids.

That makes it a CPU. The ACBL section on deviations is (surprisingly) very clear about this part.

[blackshoe]

You cannot deal with the psyche issue so quickly Art. If you open a 10-12 1NT with ♠AJT9/ ♥AT98/ ♦T98/ ♣T9, this is also only a small deviation but will 100% be classified as a psyche from everything I have read about the ACBL. As has been pointed out in many other threads here, the question is whether the same red line is used for other "at least 10hcp" calls.

It's not classified as a psych, it's classified as an illegal agreement.

[mycroft]

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?

 

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:

 

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]

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]

But as for the ban on psyching conventional openings,

 

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

[jnichols]

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