[andy_h]

1NT always

[helene_t]

This is a 14-count. Opening this hand 1NT because it's more fun to open 1NT than to open a minor is fair enough, but then our NT range should be disclosed as (14)15-17 or some such.

15-17 means per definition that we are equally likely to downgrade 15 and to upgrade 14. Whether that is a good strategy is, of course, a different matter.

[Wackojack]

3+5+6+1 = 14. Its official from a mathematician.

[gwnn]

Wackojack, on Mar 14 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

3+5+6+1 = 14. Its official from a mathematician.

the question is, is 14 an element of [15;17] ?

[helene_t]

I thought more like
4.2+4.2 (two aces)
+1.8+1.8 (two queens)
+0.8+0.8+0.8 (three jacks)
-0.5 (4333 shape)
=13.9

Or something like that.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Mar 14 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

4.2+4.2 (two aces)
+1.8+1.8 (two queens)
+0.8+0.8+0.8 (three jacks)
-0.5 (4333 shape)
=13.9

I think that undervalues the aces. An ace and a queen is worth more than two kings.

Woolsey recommends treating an ace as 4.5, a queen as 1.75 and a jack as 0.75. That would give:

4.5+4.5 (two aces)
+1.75+1.75 (two queens)
+0.75+0.75+0.75 (three jacks)
-0.5 (4333 shape)
=14.25

But if I used this approach to evaluation I'd also knock off a bit for the awful intermediates, thus arriving at about the same answer as you.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Mar 14 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

This is a 14-count. Opening this hand 1NT because it's more fun to open 1NT than to open a minor is fair enough, but then our NT range should be disclosed as (14)15-17 or some such.

15-17 means per definition that we are equally likely to downgrade 15 and to upgrade 14. Whether that is a good strategy is, of course, a different matter.

It would be good if there was a standard definition for these things but i am not so sure that there is.

I am also not so sure that your definition is a good one. What say I never downgrade but I upgrade 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 14 counts. How do I disclose that? And how does someone else disclose upgrading 20% or 50% or 14 counts. There is a big difference between 15-17 where one player or partnership upgradesay 10% of the 14s and another upgrade 50% of the 14s.

I have just made the following note in the latest version of our system:

"e.g. (11)12-14
This usually indicates a hcp range. The range is based on
minimum suit lengths. A different (lower) range would ap-
ply in a hand with longer long suits and more distribution.
Any values within parentheses indicate that those values
are only included based on the judgement of the bidder. It
is possible but very unlikely that other values outside this
range will make the described bid with minimum distribu-
tion. As a rough guide values in parentheses correspond to
around 10% to 75% frequency of the bid being made with
that value. Therefore values outside parentheses will have
a frequency in excess of 75%. Similar notation and princi-
ples apply to suit lengths. For example (5)6 hearts means
normally six hearts but a significant proportion of five-card
suits may make the same bid. Note it does not deny that
we will never have a seven-card suit but indicates that this
is unlikely (less than 10% of seven-card suits will take this
action)."

This too may not be ideal.

[pclayton]

I downgrade this at IMPs NV only. Vul I don't want to miss a game, and at MPs I'm not betting a full board swing on this by opening 1N.

Although I might if I needed a little push late in a session.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Mar 14 2008, 08:00 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 14 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

15-17 means per definition that we are equally likely to downgrade 15 and to upgrade 14.

It would be good if there was a standard definition for these things but i am not so sure that there is.

I am also not so sure that your definition is a good one. What say I never downgrade but I upgrade 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 14 counts. How do I disclose that? [...]
I have just made the following note in the latest version of our system:

"e.g. (11)12-14
This usually indicates a hcp range. The range is based on
minimum suit lengths. A different (lower) range would ap-
ply in a hand with longer long suits and more distribution.
Any values within parentheses indicate that those values
are only included based on the judgement of the bidder.[...]

I think it would be overkill to formalize the criteria on the basis of which one up- or downgrades. Maybe some partnerships up/downgrade solely on the basis of the notrump-strength of the hand (say using close to MW points but looking at intermediates only) while others take the strength of the hand in case of a major suit fit into account (say upgrading aces). If I new about my partner's tendencies in that respect I should mention in on the large CC I suppose, but so far I have never been in a partnership with that level of understanding.

I think that "15 points" should mean "the playing strength of an average 4432-hand with 15 MW points". How exactly "playing strength" is evaluated probably does not need to be disclosed because it would be too complicated, or because players would not be able to say anything more enlightening than "on the basis of judgement".

15-17 should mean 14.500-17.499 on a continous scales. Now if you never downgrade but upgrade 1 in 100 14-counts, I suppose you real range is 14.490-17.489, and of course it serves no practical purpose to disclose this as anything more complicated than "15-17". (Except if the policy never to downgrade is unusual enough to be mentioned on the CC).

But the hand that started this thread really evaluates to 14, not 14.5 or anything close to that. So if your partnership understanding is to open such a hand 1NT, I think "15-17" is inadequate disclosure.

[655321]

helene_t, on Mar 15 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

But the hand that started this thread really evaluates to 14, not 14.5 or anything close to that. So if your partnership understanding is to open such a hand 1NT, I think "15-17" is inadequate disclosure.

LOL

"Director, they told me they play a 15-17 NT, but they opened 1NT on QJ8 AJ4 AQ76 J32."

It is bad enough IMO that people would deny holding 15-17 balanced with this hand, tricking partner into playing a partscore instead of game. But, on top of that, to claim that if you open 1NT and describe your 1NT as 15-17 you are not adequately disclosing...

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Mar 15 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

But the hand that started this thread really evaluates to 14, not 14.5 or anything close to that. So if your partnership understanding is to open such a hand 1NT, I think "15-17" is inadequate disclosure.

If someone evaluates his hand only by counting 4-3-2-1 points, it's hard to object to him using the same method to describe it. You can't compel him to adopt a more sophisticated approach.

[helene_t]

No of course not, but several posters here seem to evaluate this hand as 14 and nevertheless open 1NT because 1NT is more fun than 1m, especially nonvul at matchpoints.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Mar 14 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

This is a 14-count. Opening this hand 1NT because it's more fun to open 1NT than to open a minor is fair enough, but then our NT range should be disclosed as (14)15-17 or some such.

15-17 means per definition that we are equally likely to downgrade 15 and to upgrade 14. Whether that is a good strategy is, of course, a different matter.

Well, I disagree.
1. I think this hand is worth a 15 count with its two aces.
2. There is a reason why people are upgrading more often than they are downgrading. If you plot the distribution of the actual value of balanced hands with, say, 15 hcp, then it is not symmetric. If x is the median value of all 15 hcp hands, then there are more 15 hcp hands that are worth more than x+0.5 than 15 hcp hands that are worth less than x-0.5.
[We tried for a while to play a style where we upgrade about as much as we downgrade, I found it more difficult to play.]
So I don't think 15-17 means what you define it to mean.

[hotShot]

In the range of 15-17 HCP ~44% of the hands have 15 HCP.

QJ8 AJ4 AQ76 J32
has a perfect shape, 2 aces, nice stopper in the majors and a weak ♣J.
It is an average hand with ups and downs. So when I agreed to NT with 15 HCP such hands were definitely included.
Playing NT this hand will on average make 1♠, 1.5♥ and 1.5♦ = 4 tricks and will promote anything partner holds in ♣. If you are lucky (25% of the time ) it's worth 5 tricks.
Axx Axx Axxx Axx will make only 4 tricks too, would you downgrade that?

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Mar 15 2008, 04:30 AM, said:

15-17 should mean 14.500-17.499 on a continous scales. Now if you never downgrade but upgrade 1 in 100 14-counts, I suppose you real range is 14.490-17.489

You lost me there. In the context of your post, to even discuss upgrading a 14 count doesn't make sense. Don't you really mean upgrading a hand that is worth 14? I think the upgrading of 14 counts is already incorporated in the 14.5-17.499 range. I guess you are assuming the value of hands relative to their actual high cards is linear, but I'm sure it's not.

BTW I completely disagree that you should disclose if you open very bad 15 counts 15-17 1NT. This is nothing more than a style issue, and it's quite well understood you don't alert based on style unless it's very unusual. It would be a hard sell that there is any balanced 15 count which would be quite unusual to open 1NT Obviously if they ask about your style, you explain it as best you can.

[skjaeran]

This is an automatic 1NT playing 15-17 IMO. I'd never consider downgrading it. The only card I think might be bad here is the ♣J. The rest is fine. QJ combo, AJ combo, AQ combo. I even hold the beer card.