[Mbodell]

So with what frequency should you include a point count in your range for a bid when making initial disclosures about your bid.

If you define too narrow of a range, opponents get upset when you are outside that range, especially if you are playing "non-standard" methods. If you define a super expansive range, opponents don't really know what you are playing.

For instance, I'm currently playing precision w/ weak NT in fields where SA or 2/1 are the norm. How should I disclose the range of my bids (either online with an alert or in a one sentence summary live) given HCP count isn't the determining factor in what I bid.

An easy example is 1NT. Through simulation I know that if I open 1NT, with our agreements, in 1st seat then I have:

11 HCP 2.02%
12 HCP 38.00%
13 HCP 32.80%
14 HCP 27.18%

I usually have been describing this as (11+)12-14 online or on a CC and it seems to describe the situation pretty well.

A harder example is 1S, which again from simulation in 1st seat I know by partnership agreement that when I open 1S I have:

7 HCP 0.01%
8 HCP 0.20%
9 HCP 2.36%
10 HCP 11.36%
11 HCP 22.88%
12 HCP 20.38%
13 HCP 17.51%
14 HCP 14.32%
15 HCP 10.98%

I usually in the past have been describing this as (8+)11-15 because we treat the hands as if they had 11-15 strength since the lower point count hands have sufficient shape and quick tricks to make them like an 11-15 point hand. But now looking at it 10 HCP frequency happens more than 15 HCP frequency (partially because 15 point 5332 hands don't tend to open the major). So would a fairer description be (9+)10-15?

More ambiguous is 1D which is our 15-17 balanced and our normal precision 1D where the if I bid 1D I have:

7 HCP 0.00%
8 HCP 0.05%
9 HCP 0.73%
10 HCP 4.73%
11 HCP 17.91%
12 HCP 11.99%
13 HCP 10.63%
14 HCP 8.73%
15 HCP 23.47%
16 HCP 12.63%
17 HCP 9.14%

In the NT case the 11 point happened >2% of the time but it didn't get included in the range. Does the 10 point be part of the range here? I've generally been describing this bid as (8+)11-15 w/ 2+ diamonds OR balanced 15-17. Would a fairer description be (9+)10-15 w/ 2+ diamonds OR balanced 15-17; or (10+)11-15 w/ 2+ diamonds OR balanced 15-17?

All of these ranges get modified based on vulnerability and what seat it is but I guess I'm wondering around what % should something make my (x+) denomination and around what % should something make my y-z range. It seems to me that even if my partner and I would agree to 100% bid a certain bid with a given hand that happens to have 8 HCP, I shouldn't necessarily tell my opponents in my short summary that my range includes 8 HCP if it does but only with 1 in every 2000 hands that made that bid (obviously if they ask could it contain such a hand I'd tell them yes, or if they asked for me to explain more about the various evaluation methods we use I'd do so and get into a more detailed explanations).

[gwnn]

I think you shouldn't lose much sleep over this. I think "limited to 15" or 10-15, with the possible mention of "hands with shape or controls may upgrade strongly" is more than enough disclosure.

[Rossoneri]

gwnn, on Oct 23 2007, 06:20 PM, said:

I think you shouldn't lose much sleep over this. I think "limited to 15" or 10-15, with the possible mention of "hands with shape or controls may upgrade strongly" is more than enough disclosure.

Agreed.

[FrancesHinden]

These things tend to depend a bit on the standard of the opponents, but for the 1D opening I would say something like "10-17, either 15-17 balanced or normal Precision 1D opener"

[kenrexford]

I agree with the problem. If you play standard or 2/1 GF and open an occasional 9-count because of shape, the opponents think you are weird. If you play THX 1138, then step out of your stated range by a smidge, you are a damned cheat.

I gave up long ago and decided to simply define the thing wildly. State a normal range as a normal range and then state the reasonably likely variance as a reasonably likely variance. If they want specifics, give the specifics.

[awm]

I don't think the very unusual upgrades really need to be part of the range. If your opponents are the type to get annoyed by this, you can just pre-alert "we occasionally upgrade hands with nice distribution by a point or two" before you start play.

I'd describe them: 1NT 12-14, 1♠ good 10 - 15, 1♦ good 10-15 with diamonds OR 15-17 balanced.

[keylime]

On our prealert tabs we have the following:

"Normally 10-15 hcp, but frequently upgrade shapely hands with prime controls".

[mycroft]

Heh - prealert tabs.

I remember in 2001, pd and I played 1950 EHAA, and made up a Prealert card for the things we needed to Prealert. Played in a very GCC event. You can probably guess the scene...

About round 5, the TD comes along, picks up my CC, pulls out the Prealert form, reads it for about 10 seconds, puts it back, and walks away.

Probably wasn't even reported, just that somebody saw the weird, usually Mid-chart only grey page, and figured it should be checked out.

But yeah, you can't step even a bit out of line playing stone-age EHAA; but that's because we likes us our Blackwood, even if we never used it...okay. We likes us our SOS redoubles.

Michael.

[jdonn]

I would say say 9+(10-15) for your 1♠, or even just leave out the 9+ and say 10-15. For the 1♦ either 10+(11-15) or just 11-15 (for the first part.)

For your 1NT opening I think it's misleading to include the 11+. Only one out of every fifty of your 1NT openers has 11, even though 11 is more common than any of 12 13 14 for you to hold. If I can just ballpark it that 30% of the balanced 11-14 hands you hold have 11, that means you are opening 1/15 of your balanced 11 counts 1NT, which I don't think is frequent enough (or even close) to include in your announcement. I would think X+(Y-Z) means you open the bid when you have X about 1/4 or 1/3 of the time, give or take, and would probably announce as such myself if I opened 1NT on between 10% and 50% of my balanced 11s.

[inquiry]

jdonn, on Oct 23 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

I would say say 9+(10-15) for your 1♠, or even just leave out the 9+ and say 10-15. For the 1♦ either 10+(11-15) or just 11-15 (for the first part.)

His 1♦ includes a lot of 16 and 17 hcp, so his range needs to include those every time he bids on line, for if he says he playing precision, this will surprise many

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Oct 23 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 23 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

I would say say 9+(10-15) for your 1♠, or even just leave out the 9+ and say 10-15. For the 1♦ either 10+(11-15) or just 11-15 (for the first part.)

His 1♦ includes a lot of 16 and 17 hcp, so his range needs to include those every time he bids on line, for if he says he playing precision, this will surprise many

You even quoted it Ben...

jdonn, on Oct 23 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

...(for the first part.)

As in, for the first part of his 2-part explanation, the second being "or 15-17 balanced."

[dake50]

This reminds me of a Pekiner rant by Slawinski (I think). His assertion is the bids function in the given system should be disclosed ( obstruct, invite if fit, force any, etc.)
and artificial/natural. Disclose HCP only if that IS the bids function.
This is closer to bridge, the real game, than using some artificial 'hcp' variable to claim 'we have disclosed our understanding'