[jdonn]

pclayton, on Jan 8 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 8 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jan 8 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

14 is a judgement call.  12 isn't.

Says who? When you are 1 point outside your announced range you get to use judgment, when you are 2 or more outside you don't? That is the claim you are making?

I see no problem at all with the 5 point range rule (a stupid rule to begin with.) 12 is not in the range, any more than 14 is in the range of someone who opens Jx Axx AKQxx Txx with 1NT.

I suppose by this same reasoning xx, xx, xx, AKQJxxx is also a 1N opening.

It's a 15.0 in K and R fwiw.

Yes it can be. Stupid judgment, sure. But the key word is not 'stupid', it's 'judgment'.

I guess the basic idea is that I believe it goes without saying when you announce a high card range, you are not announcing the amount of high cards you hold. You are announcing the approximate value and nature of your hand. 15-17 to me means "a hand worth about 15-17", not "I hold precisely 15-17." I actually wouldn't have a problem with using the second interpretation, but what I don't understand is that the overwhelmingly majority view seems to be somewhat in between, where the first holds if you have exactly 14 or 18 and otherwise doesn't.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Jan 8 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

MY view, not based on any reading of the Laws and therefore of even less use than my typical post, is that I have NO problem with opening 1N on out-of-range hands PROVIDED that you announce it. It shouldn't be hard: 'usually 15-17, but we frequently upgrade hands with a good 6 card minor: it might even be a great 12 count'.

Yes, it is a pain to have to announce these agreements, but it is surely a much bigger pain to be on defence, work very hard to count out the cards, and screw up the defence because 'partner can't have that holding unless the opps have lied to me by announcing 15-17' We all know that great 14s will be included and I know of no-one who would take offence at that. But 12?????

Right.

Bridge is a game of inference, and therefore disclosure is required.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jan 8 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

The presumption is that a NT opener shows a balanced hand. These hands are not balanced..

So it's not the 12 points that bothers you, it's the 6 card suit? It would be a huge expert majority that sometimes opens 1NT with a 6 card minor, and I bet it is never alerted at all.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 8 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

MY view, not based on any reading of the Laws and therefore of even less use than my typical post, is that I have NO problem with opening 1N on out-of-range hands PROVIDED that you announce it. It shouldn't be hard: 'usually 15-17, but we frequently upgrade hands with a good 6 card minor: it might even be a great 12 count'.

I agree that this would be the best practical solution but technically it probably isn't allowed. You are supposed to announce the range if 1N is natural, balanced, but I don't think you are allowed to volunteer explanations.

[awm]

Before we go too far overboard here, the General Convention Chart does state:

Quote

A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons).

So simply the fact of having a 2326 type pattern does not make the 1NT opening an unbalanced hand, an illegal bid, or an alert. The 2227 example is more questionable (three doubletons).

I think that if the announced range were 12-14, or perhaps 13-15, then it would be very hard to see any problem with opening 1NT on these hands.

[blackshoe]

I'm not bothered - but I will say that it's the combination of 12 HCP and a six card suit that IMO makes this agreement alertable.

There's a (very good) player here who used to live in Mexico. She has a lot of experience from those days playing against Romex. Her problem, she tells me, was not with Romex per se, but that the experts playing that system refused to alert when they should have. That's not to say that occasionally, or even often, opening 1NT on a six card suit makes the bid alertable. it's rather to say that the fact that experts (even a huge majority of them) don't alert something doesn't mean it's not alertable.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jan 8 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

it's rather to say that the fact that experts (even a huge majority of them) don't alert something doesn't mean it's not alertable.

Any more than the fact that bridge players (even a huge majority of them) think it's ok to not alert that they might upgrade 14 but must alert if they upgrade 12?

I agree Adam, that clause seems to make the 2227 hand no good assuming that is what the partnership expects to be possible. Only because it's a specific prohibition (well it does say 'generally' but I won't nitpick on that.)

[MickyB]

The majority prefer to upgrade hands more often than they downgrade. This means that the stated range usually applies to 4333s, with 5332s in a strong NT being closer to 14-16 than 15-17. This is common knowledge.

The problem comes when players

a] think a 6322 with a good six-card suit is worth three HCP more than a 4333
b] think this hand still counts as "balanced", despite having two short, weak suits

I don't think there is an easy solution to this. Just announcing the literal range might be better as it would encourage further questioning, but it gives the impression that the agreement is illegal, which it certainly shouldn't be IMO.

[awm]

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth.

It seems to me that "offensive strength" and "defensive strength" are different things. The first determines how many tricks you expect to take when declaring; it increases a lot when you have a shapely hand or a good six card suit. The second is how many tricks you expect to take on defense, and "high card points" perhaps slightly modified to emphasize controls over slow cards are much more accurate here. A long suit with honors in the suit can actually reduce the defensive strength of a hand.

I'd argue that the "standard" meaning of bids implies something on both counts. Typically a preempt will be fairly strong offensively but fairly weak defensively. A 1NT opening is the opposite, usually delivering substantial defensive strength but not much stronger offensively.

The hands given deliver something approximating the "offensive strength" of a standard strong NT opening, but deliver very little defensive strength. I think a style in which players open hands based on offensive strength only and generally disregard defense is a perfectly allowable style, but that when taken to extremes like this it should require some disclosure (either a pre-alert or alert). Similarly, if a partnership routinely opens 1♠ with the following, it should be disclosed:

♠KQTxxx
♥-
♦QJTxx
♣xx

One can certainly argue that this is a five-loser hand, it has 26 ZAR points, it makes game opposite two aces and a balanced hand, and so forth and so on. But it delivers virtually no defensive strength.

On another note, if a partnership routinely opens a strong 2♣ with:

♠KQJTxxxx
♥-
♦KQJTx
♣-

I think this also should be an alert for much the same reason. Again you can argue that offensively, this is a game force (two loser hand, 4♠ cold opposite virtually anything). But defensively, this hand could well deliver one or zero tricks!

Obviously, my opinions are not enshrined in LAW anywhere. Thus I voted the "active ethics to disclose" option.

[matmat]

I'm going to turn into a walrus here, and y'all can point and laugh. 15-17 HCP means 15-17 points in the Goren count system. it doesn't mean 14, sometimes even 12, it means 15-17. I have no problem whatsoever in people upgrading 14s, 13s or even 12s, if they think they have the playing strength of a 15-17. I do mind if a partnership has the understanding that they may deviate by as much as a queen or king and not make it knowledge available to the opponents.

Unfortunately we're stuck with the particular point evaluation system and the laws of the game are written within that framework, since there is an insistence on disclosing NT range, you might as well do it accurately, I don't really see the purpose of concealing frequent deviations with a blanket 15-17, hell, I'd even prefer it if the range were simply described as "strong, with a maximum of 17" (or 18, or 16 or whatever)

Another possible issue here, and this is sort of going away from the original post, is those playing a mini-nt (10-12), who sometimes "upgrade" their 9s; As I recall the ACBL is fairly clear on NT having fewer than 10hcp and what systems one is allowed to play over it; how do people feel about this?

so if a rule is bad, does it mean it's ok to break it?

[mike777]

"One of the better players in our district will routinely open a strong 1NT on hands like:"


If this "player" has been doing this for years what did his opponents actually do?
What have the directors been doing for years?

I get the impression the answer is nothing, nothing for years.


OTOH if the directors have been ruling that this is ok and ruling that way for years OK>

[awm]

mike777, on Jan 8 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

If this "player" has been doing this for years what did his opponents actually do?

Keep in mind that I haven't lived in this district for very long, and I am not one of this players' regular partners (although I have opposed him and played on teams with him on occasion). So honestly I don't know whether anyone has complained about this or what sort of traction they get from directors. I'd note that the hand type of (322)6 shape with a very strong six card minor suit is not overwhelmingly frequent, so it's quite possible that this action is more like a "once a month" occurrence than an every day one. I have seen him make these openings several times and heard him comment that he "thinks this is the value of the hand" and would always bid this way.

This player also has the type of reputation that local directors are likely to rule however he tells them to rule (i.e. he knows more about the laws than most directors, serves on committees, etc) so whatever they rule in his case may be a bit biased.

[mike777]

"Keep in mind that I haven't lived in this district for very long, and I am not one of this players' regular partners (although I have opposed him and played on teams with him on occasion). "


If you play on teams with him on occasion it seems you need to make an ethical decision.

If you and your local directors think this is normal bridge, no problem.
If you do not, you got a problem.

[david_c]

I voted for "Should require an alert or other special disclosure", but really that's wrong - it's not alertable, nor is there anything special about the disclosure required, they just need to disclose accurately, rather than giving a range which does not correspond to what they are playing.

Now, some amount of upgrading / downgrading is expected, and does not need to be explicitly disclosed. But obviously we've got to draw the line somewhere, and in my opinion what they are doing crosses that line (though not by much). This shouldn't be a big deal though. As TD I would just tell them that 15-17 is not an adequate explanation and ask them to find a way to describe it better.

If we didn't have announcements this would be easy. With announcements, it's not clear what the right thing to say is. Personally I would recommend they say, "15-17, maybe less with a good suit". Or something like that. Just find something which points out to the opponents the possibility of unusual levels of upgrading, without being overly long or confusing. (In response to Arend's post above, I would say this is a description of the range.)

[han]

I agree with what mikeh wrote. It's perfectly fine to open these hands with 1NT, but they should make their opponents aware that they frequently do this. It seems to me that it follows the spirit of the game, and I doubt that you can get into trouble by making such an announcement.

This summer in the Spingold Meckwell told us before playing started that they take point count very liberally, they like to upgrade and they do it anytime it seems right to them (and they added: and sometimes when it doesn't). I think that that's a great example of how it should be done.

Last week I played against Uday and his partner. When they opened 1NT they said something like "15-17 or sometimes a 14-count but only with a decent 5-card suit". This seemed unnecessary to me as I consider that normal bridge, but it can't hurt and I am sure that some opponents really appreciate it. Playing against pairs that alert like this is very pleasant in my experience.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Jan 8 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

Last week I played against Uday and his partner. When they opened 1NT they said something like "15-17 or sometimes a 14-count but only with a decent 5-card suit". This seemed unnecessary to me as I consider that normal bridge, but it can't hurt and I am sure that some opponents really appreciate it. Playing against pairs that alert like this is very pleasant in my experience.

Call me a cynic, and nothing at all against Uday, but I find this sort of things rather annoying. I just want to sit and play, and if I want to know about something I ask. I don't want to be swamped by irrelevent explanations that aren't required, about which I usually don't care, and that get in the way. He is definitely erring on the safe side, but people can go too far the other way too and just bombard you with information you don't care about.

I hope it doesn't look like I try to hide things every chance I get. If the opponents ask something about style THEN I am probably one of the best around at offering good information, and in fact I take pride in that. I got complimented on it twice in San Francisco at the national, which was very nice. But anyway as for the original question, I am still waiting to hear what is the difference between 14 that is worth 15, and 12 that is worth 15, as far as what someone should announce.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Jan 8 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

I am still waiting to hear what is the difference between 14 that is worth 15, and 12 that is worth 15, as far as what someone should announce.

Is opening a 'good' 12 count as 15-17 balanced is highly unusual or unexpected? If at your rarified level it's usual and expected, then I guess you don't need to alert it.

Again, it's not a question of judgement, it's a question of whether it's what your opponents expect for your bid (and announcement). I know what my opponents at the local club expect, and what people gripe about when I direct online. Maybe your field is different.

I think "15-17 occassionally weaker" should be a fine explanation of range. But then, I also thought "Invitational, usually in the 8-11 range" implied that we have the occassional 6 count, but I had a national-level director get upset with me about it. So who knows.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Jan 8 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 8 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

I am still waiting to hear what is the difference between 14 that is worth 15, and 12 that is worth 15, as far as what someone should announce.

Is opening a 'good' 12 count as 15-17 balanced is highly unusual or unexpected? If at your rarified level it's usual and expected, then I guess you don't need to alert it.

14 is highly unusual and unexpected to huge classes of players, both with regard to skill level and probably to geography. Anyway don't forget in all this, the bid still shows 15-17 balanced, and that's what the player presumably has the large majority of the time.

FWIW I (in my opinion) intentionally over-alert at the club. Many people there seem to want to know what everything means simply because they are allowed to, rather than because it makes any difference to what they will do, so I oblige the masses. I am speaking in this thread about what I think is right, not what I expect most people to think is right.

Some people will never be happy. I have seen the director called on a player for raising his partner's 1♠ to 2♠ with AQJx Jxx Jxx Jxx. I wouldn't let the odd director call by people who don't understand why the rules are they way they are discourage you from doing what you 'know' is right. I don't want to hide anything. I simply think your agreement should be alerted, and style and judgment should not, with the opponents asking about that if it makes a difference to them. And to me this is in that category, even if it does seem extreme to many.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Jan 8 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

This player also has the type of reputation that local directors are likely to rule however he tells them to rule (i.e. he knows more about the laws than most directors, serves on committees, etc) so whatever they rule in his case may be a bit biased.

That's just... wrong.

If Edgar Kaplan himself came back from the grave to play where I am directing, I will still rule IAW the laws as I understand them, and if he doesn't like the ruling, he has the same right of appeal as anybody else. And so should any other director.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jan 8 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

I simply think your agreement should be alerted, and style and judgment should not, with the opponents asking about that if it makes a difference to them. And to me this is in that category, even if it does seem extreme to many.

It will never occur defenders to ask whether the 1N opener that has been announced as "15-17" could be based on a 12-count with a nice 6-card minor. I don't even think this hand type is very infrequent, if I was defender I would really like to be able to take it into account.

Also your distinction between agreements and style doesn't exist, obviously it is a style issue with which hands you raise 1m-1M on 3-card support, but if you know partners style then it is an agreement.

Obviously it is a grey area, for example on the German bridge mailing list many argued that you should alert 1m-1M-2M if it is frequently based on 3-card support; probably that is right in Germany since it is an unusual style but obviously it wouldn't make sense in most places. But you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think these 1N openings cross the line where you should add a comment to the announcement.