[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-27, 08:10, said:

I agree that if partner bids 3N with a 9 or 10 count it probably won't be good on average, there is no debate there. And I will probably often wrongside it when it is our hand for 3N. I still think it will be a winning action to open 1N because it will often be their hand when I have 2 small 3 small in the majors, and white/white at MP if it is their hand and they have a harder time competing effectively that is very good for us. Every action has some plusses and some minuses, looking at only the times when a bid will lose and running a simulation of those times is not a good way to evaluate whether it is a good bid or not.

Accusing me of being unethical or cheating because I open 1N with 14 and a good 5 card suit is pretty lol. But fwiw I always write/say 14+-17 or 13+-16 or 10+-13 whatever my range is. I also always tell the opps in a knockout match when they ask our system "all ranges can be upgraded by 1 and are done so more liberally not vulnerable and in third seat." If they ask about my shape I say very liberal on all reasonable shapes (5422, 5 card major, 6 card minor). I view this as adequate disclosure of my style, though perhaps in pair games it is harder and usually they only hear 14+-17 since they don't go over your system at the beginning of the round, but perfect disclosure in pair games is always harder than in knockout matches.

edit: For example, here is my system summary form from the last USBF event I played:

http://usbf.org/inde...fid=962&pid=186

"Ranges are flexible and upgrades are frequent, downgrades not frequent."

To make it clear I quoted you but I did not want to accuse you of cheating.
I have no doubts that you believe in full disclosure.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

At the risk of offending Justin, and with no intention of doing so at all, in my opinion if your cc states 15-17 and your partnership style treats this as a 1N opener, you are being unethical.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Justin should be agreeing with me precisely because, while he sees this a wtp 1N, he stresses that he ensures that his cc reflects this sort of call, and goes even further to inform his opps of his partnership tendencies.....imo, a perfect example of how to deal with the fact that experts don't simply count points.

I am a liberal upgrader, and the 5th club is definitely a positive, but the club J isn't worth much (on many hands, AKQxx will produce as many tricks offensively as AKQJx, and the J isn't worth much at all on defence), and the major suit holdings are horrific.

Personally, I would be more comfortable agreeing to play a 14-16 range than choosing to open 1N. The fact that I am tempted to open 1N says more about that feeling than it does about whether this hand is a 1N bid. After all, when one plays a 15-17 1N, one is (usually) opening for constructive reasons, and as Justin noted, this 1N is probably more effective for peremptive reasons.

[aguahombre]

I know that KNR is scornworthy, but it really likes that Jack of clubs right where it is, and rates the hand at 14.8. I doubt a challenge to disclosure/ethics would be successful if the pair uses and claims 15-17.

AKQJX rates to run five tricks opposite a singleton or a doubleton (void, if lucky 4-4 split). AKQXX doesn't rate to run unless pard has 3+. I know, simplistic expression of the obvious, but it seems important to me.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-27, 14:33, said:

I know that KNR is scornworthy, but it really likes that Jack of clubs right where it is, and rates the hand at 14.8. I doubt a challenge to disclosure/ethics would be successful if the pair uses and claims 15-17.

AKQJX rates to run five tricks opposite a singleton or a doubleton (void, if lucky 4-4 split). AKQXX doesn't rate to run unless pard has 3+. I know, simplistic expression of the obvious, but it seems important to me.

I agree.
I would not call the director if I, as an opponent, were on the receiving end missing say a major suit game after such a 1NT opening. But I know I would have a feeling of being ripped off.
This has to do with your objectives in the bidding, which change, depending on the notrump range your opponents announce.
This is what makes the preemptive effect so much better when you claim this to be a strong notrump hand.
Game considerations tend not to be a major objective, when opponents open a strong notrump. You are more in obstruction mode. The reason of course is that you expect a strong notrump to have more defensive tricks than this hand.

Now we have two separate issues here.
If you honestly believe this hand is a strong notrump hand go ahead.
I have given Bridge reasons, why I believe this hand does not belong into the 15-17 notrump range, assuming, somewhat naive, constructive considerations are predominant for this notrump range.
You can also misrepresent your strength for tactical reasons. That is part of the game as long as you and your partner have no secret understandings about this.
Whether the preemptive effect compensates for the instances where partner will put you into a no-play 3NT everyone has to decide for himself.

KNR is a good trick estimator, but for hands played at a (sensible) trump contract. KNR is not such a good evaluator when estimating trick potential of hands played at notrump, which is different. KNR also makes no distinction between majors and minors when evaluating a hand.

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on 2012-May-27, 14:18, said:

At the risk of offending Justin, and with no intention of doing so at all, in my opinion if your cc states 15-17 and your partnership style treats this as a 1N opener, you are being unethical.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Justin should be agreeing with me precisely because, while he sees this a wtp 1N, he stresses that he ensures that his cc reflects this sort of call, and goes even further to inform his opps of his partnership tendencies.....imo, a perfect example of how to deal with the fact that experts don't simply count points.

I am a liberal upgrader, and the 5th club is definitely a positive, but the club J isn't worth much (on many hands, AKQxx will produce as many tricks offensively as AKQJx, and the J isn't worth much at all on defence), and the major suit holdings are horrific.

Personally, I would be more comfortable agreeing to play a 14-16 range than choosing to open 1N. The fact that I am tempted to open 1N says more about that feeling than it does about whether this hand is a 1N bid. After all, when one plays a 15-17 1N, one is (usually) opening for constructive reasons, and as Justin noted, this 1N is probably more effective for peremptive reasons.

I mean, it's kind of circular but if I had agreed 15-17 and never opened an ave+ 14 1N then I would still open 1N. Yes, I'd probably have to change my cc/we'd have an implicit agreement after but I view it as a totally winning bridge action even playing 15-17 and misleading partner. But of course probably that I feel this way has led me to my current agreements of always upgrading a lot of 1 point less and 5 card suit hand types, so like I said it is circular.

This is just my view and you can disagree with my opinion that the tactical gains of opening 1N on this type of hand outweigh the times that partner overbids and/or we wrongside NT. I do not know this for sure obvioulsy, but I feel like my experience strongly supports this.

[nigel_k]

I would open 1♣ at pairs in a weak field only and 1NT any other time.

In my view, '15-17' includes any hand that is closer in playing strength to an average 15 than an average 14. So this hand qualifies. There is no requirement to disclose that you may upgrade or downgrade though I usually put on the CC 'HCP are a guide only' or words to that effect.

[rhm]

nigel_k, on 2012-May-28, 00:17, said:

In my view, '15-17' includes any hand that is closer in playing strength to an average 15 than an average 14. So this hand qualifies. There is no requirement to disclose that you may upgrade or downgrade though I usually put on the CC 'HCP are a guide only' or words to that effect.

Maybe this is all about hand evaluation

A couple of years ago we had a thread http://www.bridgebas...rade+%2Bnotrump

the hand in question was

♠AJ2 ♥T94 ♦AT97 ♣AJ6
and the general mood was not to upgrade. Now we have

♠96 ♥985 ♦KJ7 ♣AKQJ2
and here a lot of people think upgrading is automatic.

To me it looks the other way round and I do not consider it close.

Rainer Herrmann

[y66]

gnasher, on 2008-June-14, 11:49, said:

Being in agreement only with NickRW and me is, I suppose, much the same as being alone.

I enjoyed reading that old thread, esp. gnasher's humorous comment and Fred's Duboin hand analogy and suggestion that even hyper conservative upgraders should write 14+ to 17 on their convention card.

It seems reasonable to me to upgrade AJ2 T94 AT97 AJ6 and 96 985 KJ7 AKQJ2. I understand that the arguments for upgrading these 2 hand types are quite different.

[dboxley]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-25, 19:46, said:

Do you mean your partner is the weaker player?

Of course. You will notice I said 'player', not 'hand'

[RunemPard]

Here is another one that I chose to open 1NT w/ tonight sitting NV...

Q10
QJ10
AK10
Q10762

Not because I feel this hand is worthy of being called a strong NT opening, but because of the information and defensive effect it has. Our card does show 15-17, and in the system details area given to us we have written that we may upgrade or downgrade a hand at times if we feel it is a worthy call.

[Statto]

rhm, on 2012-May-27, 04:16, said:

For you I have repeated the simulation with partner having exactly 10 HCP balanced.
Now trick average is 7.8 and 3NT still goes down on 2 out of 3 deals.

Thanks for that. I think making on 1 in 3 deals opposite a 10 count is good enough to justify 1NT here. DD analysis of course assumes opponents will find the killer lead, which they may not. And opposite a 10 count we are only looking to make 3NT on a fraction more than 1 in 2 deals anyway.

rhm, on 2012-May-27, 17:29, said:

Whether the preemptive effect compensates for the instances where partner will put you into a no-play 3NT everyone has to decide for himself.

It's not just the preemptive effect. Even if opps don't stick an oar in, if we start with 1♣, rebid 1NT, and end up in 3NT, they are more likely to find the right lead.

[phil_20686]

rhm, on 2012-May-28, 04:29, said:

Maybe this is all about hand evaluation

A couple of years ago we had a thread http://www.bridgebas...rade+%2Bnotrump

the hand in question was

♠AJ2 ♥T94 ♦AT97 ♣AJ6
and the general mood was not to upgrade. Now we have

♠96 ♥985 ♦KJ7 ♣AKQJ2
and here a lot of people think upgrading is automatic.

To me it looks the other way round and I do not consider it close.

It seems to me that most people who are advocating 1N bid is because with xx xxx in the majors it will be much harder for the opps to bid their 4M contract. Not because it is "worth" a 1N bid particularly. You are telling a small lie to gain a tactical advantage whenever they have a major suit game.

On the other thread your major holdings were AJx T9x and you had a lot more defence generally, so there is no reason to make any tactical considerations. its a pure "what is this hand worth question".

I would open both 1N.

[TimG]

mikeh, on 2012-May-27, 14:18, said:

At the risk of offending Justin, and with no intention of doing so at all, in my opinion if your cc states 15-17 and your partnership style treats this as a 1N opener, you are being unethical.

Isn't this attributing a degree of precision in hand evaluation to "point count" or "high card points" that does not actually exist?

[mikeh]

TimG, on 2012-May-29, 10:06, said:

Isn't this attributing a degree of precision in hand evaluation to "point count" or "high card points" that does not actually exist?

No

Simplistically: ask 95% of the actual duplicate playing population (including club games) how many hcp this hand has and they will tell you: 14, and most would look at you funny....can't you count????

The CC, at least in NA, is a crude device, since those who designed it seem to represent that 95%. In my view, the post by Justin represents the way to deal with the tendency of the 5% to understand that 4321 is not the be-all and end-all of hand evaluation.

One needn't even go so far as Justin, tho my WBF cc practice has been to note 'frequent upgrades into and out of 1N and 2N opening bids' and my system notes also contain this. On an ABCL CC, I confess to some laziness sometimes, but if I have time, I always put in either 14+ or 15- as the low end for the strong 1N, when I play strong NT.

As for the actual hand, in my view the major suit holdings are so horrible that I don't understand how anyone can seriously argue that this is a strong 14, worth 15, for notrump purposes. As has been pointed out, the KNR valuation is misleading in that regard. These two flaws at least offset the plus of the AKQJx suit.

Indeed, the only logical reason I have seen advanced so far for 1N is the preemptive effect! What does that tell you about the view of those who espouse the call? They see it as primarily a blocking device, coupled with some unease about opening 1♣.

Put another way: every bridge player draws the line somewhere. For the great bulk, it is a numerical exercise. For the better player, it involves more and subtler factors, and is often not at all numerical. But we all draw the line...and therefore there is ALWAYS going to be a degree of precision.

In my own case, I am sometimes influenced, in close decisions, by the presence or absence of 8s and 9s, let alone the obvious 10's. KJ98 is a much better holding than KJ42, as one obvious example.

Here, the majors are so bad that I downgrade by as much as the clubs make me upgrade.

[Statto]

mikeh, on 2012-May-29, 13:10, said:

Simplistically: ask 95% of the actual duplicate playing population (including club games) how many hcp this hand has and they will tell you: 14, and most would look at you funny....can't you count????

Sell them some magic beans, in exchange for a cow.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2012-May-29, 13:10, said:

Simplistically: ask 95% of the actual duplicate playing population (including club games) how many hcp this hand has and they will tell you: 14, and most would look at you funny....can't you count????

While this is true it is like asking them what a 1♥ opening means - how many would reply by asking what the bidding system is? Surely the correct answer (for an upgrade) is "14, but I would treat it as 15" or "14 but worth 15". I upgrade and downgrade all the time and while I describe a 1NT opening as "12 to 14, or a good 11" (plus some stuff about distribution) I would not describe the 1NT rebid as "14+ to 17" or whatever. Perhaps I should, dunno. Our agreement is 15-17; if I upgrade a 14 count it is because I think it is worth 15. Obviously with a strong NT there are tactical reasons for upgrading too. If you do this then it is certainly not full disclosure not to let the opponents know. I do not think bringing in the massed ranks of Walruses playing bridge in clubs is particularly useful to the debate though.

[mike777]

RunemPard, on 2012-May-24, 10:53, said:

This may not be extremely interesting, but I will put it here for opinions. You are playing a very standard 2455 system. It is MP at a mid-level local club. You count your cards, flip them over, and see...

♠96
♥985
♦KJ7
♣AKQJ2

I chose to open 1NT over 1C. I had 2 very bad suits, but I felt that the possibility of making 5 club tricks alone upgraded this to a 1NT opening. I also felt I am far too strong to reply 1NT to a 1C-1H/S reply. By bidding 1NT, I also have a better chance to find out about 5 card majors from partner directly.

Do you all agree w/ my choice?

1nt but if 15-17 i can live with 1c and 2c ...what is the question here?
--

again prefer 1nt but 1c and rebid 2c ok.

14-16 hands just hard to bid but we know that.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2012-May-29, 13:10, said:

Simplistically: ask 95% of the actual duplicate playing population (including club games) how many hcp this hand has and they will tell you: 14.

But the correct question is how many HCP this hand is worth.

If you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer

[EricK]

Is there a difference between bidding 1NT on a 14 point hand because we feel it is "worth 15" in some sense, and bidding 1NT on a 14 pt hand because we feel it is a better tactical opening bid than 1♣? If someone said they upgraded a hand into 1NT I would assume they meant the former, not the latter. So I'm not sure if disclosing that you upgrade hands counts as full disclosure if the bid can be for tactical reasons in a potentially contested auction rather than because you genuinely value the hand as 15 and hope, thereby, for a more accurate constructive auction.

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-May-29, 13:10, said:

Here, the majors are so bad that I downgrade by as much as the clubs make me upgrade.

Will you downgrade for having a small doubleton?

You probably will also adowngrade when you have two honors tight.

You will also downgrade when you hold Qx or Jx.

You will also downgrade when your honors are divided evenly, because honors are worth more when working together.

You will also downgrade when your honors are centered in two suits, because then your other suits are too weak.

Sounds like you can safely remove that 14+ from your card.